Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Disabled People (Work)

Gwyn Prosser: What plans he has to improve the support his Department is giving to help people with disabilities into work.

Brian Jenkins: What support his Department is giving to help those with disabilities to get back into work.

Maria Eagle: For the first time in the history of the welfare state, we are actively seeking to assist disabled people to work where they are ready and able to do so. We have introduced a range of measures and are making work pay for people with disabilities through the disabled person's tax credit and the national minimum wage. We are making work possible through the new deal for disabled people and a range of specialist employment programmes, and by removing benefit barriers. In addition, Jobcentre Plus offers all disabled people who are making new or repeat claims to benefit interviews with a personal adviser to ensure that they are aware of the help and opportunities that are available to them. We are continuing the extension of Jobcentre Plus nationwide with about 225 integrated offices opening by April 2003.

Gwyn Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging answer. Is she aware that, while the established new deal programmes have already had a dramatic impact on unemployment in places such as Dover and Deal, and in east Kent generally, the new deal for disabled people is reaching out and helping people who want to work or are willing to do so, but need a helping hand—the sort of people whom we meet in our surgeries week in, week out? Will she assure me that we will now build on the success of the current scheme and seek other, more imaginative and progressive ways of helping disabled people—especially young people—back into work?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to say that disabled people are one of the hardest-to-help groups in terms of entering employment. For many years, disabled people were told on visiting the Benefits Agency or contacting Departments that they were incapable of work. We often need longer and more tailored interventions to assist them in getting into work. The new deal for disabled people is starting to find out the best ways of doing that and we hope to build on the lessons that we are learning as the programme continues. It has not yet been a nationwide programme for a year, so it is early days, but we are encouraged by the attitude of the disabled people who contact job brokers, as well as by the way in which job brokers can match disabled people, with all their needs and requirements, to local employers who are looking for good staff.

Brian Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and offer my congratulations in so far as I and many people in this country believe that she and her Department are at long last recognising that we cannot afford to marginalise this part of our society. Will she thank all the people who are involved in the scheme, and especially the job mentors or personal mentors? We recognise how difficult the situation is, especially for those with hidden disabilities, who are not perceived by society to have a disability, but what is she doing to tackle the residual problem of employers who fail to understand how effective some disabled people can be in the economic work force?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend makes another very important point. Employers, whether small or large, reflect the attitude and awareness issues of the rest of society. Many employers will make assumptions about what disabled people can or cannot do that are based on nothing more than old-fashioned stereotypes. It is important that the Government, and all those who work with and for disabled people, assist in getting across the fact that disabled people have a lot to offer to employers of all sizes. For example, he may know—other hon. Members may not—that disabled people are less likely to take time off work than non-disabled people. They can be valuable and long-standing members of a work force, who show loyalty and provide excellent services to their employers. It is about time that employers realised that.
	There are 8.5 million disabled people in this country with £40 billion to £45 billion of spending power in their pockets. Any employer who wants to get a share of the market that they can provide would want to employ disabled people. We would encourage employers of all sizes, from the smallest to the largest, to take that on board and give disabled people a chance.

Annabelle Ewing: What assessment has been, or is to be, made of the effectiveness of the actions of the Minister's Department in seeking to help people with disabilities to access employment, taking into account its truly abysmal record in helping people with disabilities to access the benefits to which they should be entitled?

Maria Eagle: The hon. Lady never disappoints in terms of being churlish, as she manages to be so whenever she stands up in the House. All our employment programmes and new deals are properly evaluated. The new deal for disabled people will be properly evaluated and lessons that need to be learned from its operation and success or lack of success will be learned in order to inform changes to the programme to make it better. We have every expectation that this programme and the other specialist disability employment programmes can make a real difference in helping disabled people to access the work force. If that is not a key part of civil rights for disabled people in this country, I do not know what is.

Tim Boswell: Anything that the Minister can do to advance and join up the various components of vocational rehabilitation will generally be welcome to Members on these Benches. Nevertheless, does she accept that there is little room for complacency, given that in this country only 20 per cent. of people with an acquired brain injury return to employment, whereas in the United States 50 per cent. do so? In the light of that and other information, will she concede that inthis context joined-up government requires the active co-operation of the Department of Health, local social services and other agencies? In particular, will she look favourably on experimenting with integrating budgets to ensure the early and smooth delivery of the whole range of essential rehabilitation services?

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, in that a disabled person out there in the community does not care whether it is Department of Health money or DWP money that can assist them. They want a point of contact for assistance. I agree that job rehabilitation is a tremendously important part of what we are hoping to do, and we will need to get it right if we are to make a big impact on getting disabled people back to work. Governments have not been particularly good at that in the past, so we are starting with a blank sheet.
	The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the job retention and rehabilitation pilots in the new deal for disabled people, which will ensure that we can design good, effective interventions that assist people who require help in rehabilitation to get back to work. We need to find out what works, and in doing so we must ensure that we can spread good practice to any national scheme that we come up with. An important part of any long-term intervention is to ensure that disabled people can get back into work, and we intend to make sure that "departmentalitis" does not get in the way of that.

Stephen Hepburn: I acknowledge the good work that the Government are doing in helping disabled people back to work, but has the Minister considered introducing a grant to cover the period from the time when the person starts work until they get paid? That is a source of fear for people who may have to live in poverty during that time, which could be a major discouragement.

Maria Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that disincentives in the benefits system and fear of what taking the step of going back to work will mean for available money can be a big disincentive to anybody contemplating going back into the labour market after an extended period out of it. That is why we changed the therapeutic earnings rules.
	The new permitted work rules allow people to try out work to see whether their health condition will allow them to stick it out before committing themselves to giving up their benefit. In addition, benefit linking rules now mean that people can try a job for 52 weeks—a full year—to see whether it works without losing their benefit, and volunteers doing voluntary work do not have to give up their benefits in order to dip their toe back into the world of work. Such interventions can do a lot to take away the fear that is felt by many of our fellow citizens who have been out of the work force for a long time when they are contemplating returning to it. The more that we can do to give them confidence in their own abilities to get back into work and to do a good job, while taking away the fear of losing money, the better.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady is right about the reliability of disabled workers. The same goes for older people in their 50s and 60s, and we should try to do away with prejudice in that respect, too. Does she agree that there is a real problem in getting physically disabled people to work in smaller businesses, which often provide exactly the right environment for them to work, owing to the cost of providing ramps and other equipment to enable them to work there? Many small firms do not have the spare cash to invest in that equipment. What assistance are the Government giving to enable them to invest in that type of physical equipment?

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about access. One of our specialist disability employment programmes, access to work, provides for just that kind of help. It enables individuals who have access problems to solve them in respect of the employer whom they are going to work for and solves newly emerging problems whereby employees fall into ill health while at work. Job retention is just as important as getting people into work once they have fallen out of the labour market due to ill health.
	We therefore operate a programme, which has three times its 1997 budget and helps three times as many people. We have interventions that will help, but the hon. Gentleman may know that many employers find that the adjustments that they have to make to accommodate disabled workers can be cheap and easy, and that the benefit of excellent new employees far outweighs the cost of adjustments to enable access.

Salary Linked Pension Schemes

Ian Lucas: If he will take steps to support final salary linked pension schemes.

Tony McWalter: What measures he is taking to persuade companies and concerns to continue to provide final salary pension schemes.

Andrew Smith: We have set up wide-ranging reviews of pensions regulation and retail saving, which are to report this month, and the Inland Revenue review on tax simplification, which is to report later in the year. I believe that it is right to consider concerted and radical action to sustain schemes and raise the level of pensions saving.
	It is important that policy is informed by accurate statistics on pension contributions. We have now been informed by the Office for National Statistics that there are problems with the series from which they have been estimated in the past, notably on transfers, which, the Office for National Statistics now tells us, are derivable and could be significant. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions is correcting the record in a written answer this afternoon. The Office for National Statistics is to lead a review of the statistics, including external representatives, as a matter of urgency.
	We apologise, Mr. Speaker, for figures that were previously given in good faith by Ministers on the level of pension contributions and are now subject to review. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is today placing the terms of reference of the review in the Library.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful for that thorough reply. Constituents who are employed by Iceland Frozen Foods and by the Caparo group have received notification that their final salary pension schemes have been terminated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such unilateral action by employers, without discussion or consultation, is reprehensible? If so, what will he do about it?

Andrew Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is a serious matter when such schemes are closed and I sympathise with him and his constituents. As I said earlier, that is precisely why we need to consider radical and concerted action to sustain schemes, and, as the Government have consistently said, to raise the level of pensions saving. That is why we have established the Pickering review and the Sandler review and why we are considering tax simplification. I shall consider carefully the representations that the TUC, the CBI, pension providers, and the general public make on those important matters.

Tony McWalter: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is an increasing tendency for directors to keep their final salary schemes while removing them from their employees? Is not the greatest scandal of all that employers' contributions are being slashed? While they claim simply to be changing the sort of scheme that they are producing, they are also significantly reducing the available resources. Is not it time for compulsion?

Andrew Smith: My hon. Friend characteristically makes a pertinent, forceful and timely point. All of us can understand the position of people whose contributions and prospects have been weakened while those who are responsible for their employment are in a more secure position. As part of the review that we are undertaking, it is important to examine ways in which we can secure fairness of treatment so that employees can have the same sort of security that bosses secure for themselves.

Steve Webb: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment, and look forward to a brave new era of constructive dialogue on pensions across the House.
	On the subject of dodgy pension statistics, the Secretary of State will be aware that his Department has just published the pensions income series, which shows a marked drop in company pension receipts among the newly retired. Does he think that those are dodgy statistics, or does he think that that has really happened—and, if so, why?

Andrew Smith: The advice that we were given by the Office for National Statistics was—as I have described—that the figures relating to pension contributions previously given in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions on 16 May included transfers. A footnote pointed out at the time that those transfers existed, but it also said that they were not derivable. The correction that we are making is to say that we are now advised that they could be derived, and also that they may be significant. I am not aware of any other corrections that need to be made. However, the House will be aware of the previous difficulties with pension statistics, and, in light of this experience with the ONS, I think that it would be wise to treat any figures with caution until we see the outcome of the review.

David Willetts: May I welcome the Secretary of State to his first Question Time in his new post? It is a pity that, at his first such appearance at the Dispatch Box, he should have to admit that a serious error has been made by his predecessor. I have to tell him that this might not be the only time that he comes to the House to admit mistakes made by his predecessor. Let me explain to the House what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. Ministers have been boasting that we have been saving £86 billion a year in our pensions; they are now admitting that that included transfers from one form of assets to another, and that it was not new flows. That is a significant mistake in the figures that they have been boasting about in the past months and years.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's open admission that the figures that he and his colleagues have been boasting about are wrong, but does he recognise that the amounts that households are saving are now at their lowest level since records began? How on earth could Ministers seriously have believed that we were saving almost 9 per cent. of our national income—which is what they were claiming—when all the evidence suggested that that could not possibly have been the case? If their advisers had told them that the world was flat, would Ministers have believed them?

Andrew Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, to the Liberal spokesperson—for his welcome. I want to take issue straight away with what the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said about my predecessor. My predecessor and other Ministers gave those figures in good faith on the basis of advice that they were given, and, indeed, having checked that they were being given the right advice. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were rather a low blow, especially as my predecessor has such a good record on sorting out the basis of pension provision, bringing help to millions of pensioners who were denied it by the Conservatives, and introducing the pension credit, which will ensure for the first time that people who save are rewarded rather than being penalised for their savings as they were under the Conservatives. I believe that we have done the right thing in announcing the correction to these figures, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it in that spirit.

David Willetts: The blow is to the expectations of millions of pensioners. Months ago, the Government had to withdraw their figures for the assets in our pension funds; today they are withdrawing their figures for the flows into those funds. I accept that those errors were made in good faith, and that the Secretary of State, his predecessor and the Minister of State were certainly not deliberately trying to mislead the House. The fact is, however, that the figures were seriously wrong, and that Ministers regularly claimed, on the basis of them, that they showed that the basic structure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. During Question Time, I expect questions.

David Willetts: Given that the Secretary of State used these false figures to reach the conclusion that the basic structure of pensions was right, will he accept that the conclusion that he drew was wrong, now that the figures have proved to be wrong?

Andrew Smith: The conclusions that we drew were, first, that the basic state pension should remain the foundation in retirement and, secondly, that we needed to bring in the minimum income guarantee—now amended in the pension credit—to give extra help to the poorer pensioners. As I have, said, we needed to bring in the pension credit to ensure that savings and modest occupational pensions were rewarded rather than penalised. So far as occupational and personal pensions are concerned, we have initiated reviews to examine the simplification and reform that is needed. We need a national consensus on the way forward on pensions; that will not be helped by the Conservatives proposing the abolition of the basic state pension.

Frank Field: In welcoming the Secretary of State to his post, may I draw his attention to the Order Paper, which carries more questions on pensions than at any time since Maxwell stole pension funds from his workers? May I suggest to the Secretary of State that if the population of this country is not to look forward to a leaner, meaner retirement, we need to ensure that more is saved towards our retirement income? Does he accept, therefore, that the Government must introduce radical reforms, perhaps in the autumn, if they wish to reverse the fall of new pension savings to a fifth of what they were five years ago?

Andrew Smith: The short answer to both those questions is yes: of course I take note of the number of questions on the Order Paper and of course that quite properly reflects concern in the country at what is happening to some company and occupational pension schemes. We need to consider concerted and radical action to address that situation, and my right hon. Friend is also right—as my predecessor said and as the Government have consistently said—that we need to raise savings in this country and to make building up a savings pot that genuinely provides people with security in retirement easy and accessible.

James Arbuthnot: I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking this difficult question himself, because what he has said today about statistics is significant. Does he accept that the amount of money being paid into pension funds is significantly lower than his Ministers said previously, and given the Government's raid on advance corporation tax— £5 billion every year—is that a surprise?

Andrew Smith: It is difficult reliably to estimate the scale of the correction that will need to be made until we see the outcome of the review, but clearly it could have a significant impact. As to the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to the changes in tax dividends and ACT, I have to say, and it bears repeating time and again, that the reason for making that change was to remove the perverse incentive in the system to distribute dividends rather than to reinvest. What is more, in increasing investment in this country to a level that had not been seen for years, it is having an impact.

Long-term Unemployed

Anthony D Wright: What help he will give to the long-term unemployed in deprived areas.

Nick Brown: Our policies, built on a foundation of a strong and stable economy, are helping people into work in all parts of the country.
	The new deals have already helped nearly 700,000 people into jobs nationwide—1,700 in my hon. Friend's constituency. Action teams for jobs and employment zones continue to assist disadvantaged people in the most deprived areas of the country, so far helping more than 56,000 people into work. In addition, we are introducing 20 StepUp pilots to provide transitional jobs for long-term unemployed people. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that one of the pilots will start in his constituency this autumn.

Anthony D Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and say clearly that the difference is that under the Conservative Administration there was 20 per cent. unemployment in my constituency as opposed to 6.5 per cent. now. I concur that that is due to the new deal and the other schemes, so I welcome the new initiative, but we are faced with the dilemma that those who are left unemployed are largely those who are unskilled. What other initiatives can he introduce and what can we do to try to involve other employers in my constituency and encourage them to make a greater input to the new deal and other schemes?

Nick Brown: I am pleased that our schemes are having the impact on unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency that he describes, although I believe that more needs to be done, particularly in terms of the Department's relations with employers. Specialist advisers are being appointed to a number of jobcentres to liaise directly with employers on the services that the Department provides—enhanced services through the new Jobcentre Plus arrangements, which are coming soon to my hon. Friend's constituency.

Paul Goodman: Was the Prime Minister right when he said in the House on 12 June that the number of unemployed young people is 4,500, or is the Minister's Department right when it says that the number of unemployed young people is 244,000?

Nick Brown: I understand that the statistics have been correctly stated to the House.

Paul Goggins: May I confirm that the Government are making a real difference to unemployed people in my constituency, not least the 219 long-term sick and unemployed who have been found work in the past few months by the Wythenshawe action team? When the new Jobcentre Plus offices are opened in my constituency next year, will the Minister ensure that they are located close to Wythenshawe town centre, not in the peripheral, out-of-the-way place where the Tories put the jobcentre in the 1980s?

Nick Brown: The success of action teams is primarily due to the flexibility in the schemes and the outreach work that they can undertake. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me, I shall consider the location of the new Jobcentre Plus office and see what can be done to ensure that it is appropriately sited.

Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) is right to concentrate on working with employers to ensure that there are opportunities for people to take up at the end of these valuable schemes. The Minister rightly said that personal advisers are assisting in that direction, but is he satisfied that enough is being done with account holders—the liaison people between Jobcentre Plus and the employers—to ensure that there is a transition process and that there are real jobs for the hardest to help to go to at the end of the scheme?

Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point. We need to do more to build links between the service and the employers. After all, a substantial sum of public money has been invested in improving the service, and we need to explain ourselves not just to large companies, but to small and medium employers. We are appointing these new officials at a local level so that they can have that interface with the local labour market.

Pickering Report

Barry Gardiner: When he expects to publish the Pickering report; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Smith: Last September, my predecessor asked Alan Pickering, former chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds, to carry out an independent review of private pensions legislation. His report will be published in the next few weeks.

Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest barriers to pension provision is the sheer complexity of the products on offer? Does he agree that that often makes it difficult for employees properly to assess and compare the products that are available? Does he also agree that, no matter what else Pickering may bring, one of the most vital things that should come from the report is simplification of the whole system?

Andrew Smith: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Without wanting to anticipate Alan Pickering's report, I think that it is crucial that employees are in a much better position to make informed choices. That requires a simpler range of products and the roll-out of comprehensive pension forecasts. That is why Alan Pickering was asked to report to Ministers with proposals for simplifying pensions regulation while ensuring that pension scheme members are properly protected. That is the crucial balance to get right.

John Butterfill: The Pickering report has been wildly trailed in the press, especially in the Financial Times. Mr. Pickering addressed the all-party group on occupational pensions only a few days age. He confirmed that one idea is to give employers the right to make membership of employer schemes mandatory. How would that sit with those employees who already have substantial personal pensions?

Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman's expertise in this matter is greatly and widely respected in the House. I hope that he will understand when I say that I will not be drawn into speculation about Alan Pickering's report.We will give careful consideration to all his recommendations, and we will listen carefully to the response from the public, the pensions industry, employers and trade unions.

One Stop Service

Roger Casale: What plans he has to offer a one stop service for those people who are out of work.

Malcolm Wicks: In April this year, we created Jobcentre Plus to bring together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working age. Jobcentre Plus provides an integrated, work-focused service to people who are out of work.
	Fifty-six new Jobcentre Plus offices are already up and running. We intend to roll those out across Great Britain over the next four years. We have already announced that we plan to open around 225 more offices by April 2003.

Roger Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which I welcome. Does he agree with my constituent, Charlene Kuye, who is a single parent engaged on a teacher training course, and with organisations such as Gingerbread, which speaks for lone parent families, that the complexity of the benefits system can be one of the major barriers to helping young people return to work? Will he continue to listen to benefit recipients and their representatives as we continue to improve the benefit system so that it is possible for people to make a seamless transition from taking maternity or paternity leave to going back to work or from training back to work?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, we must learn from our constituents. Our advice surgeries are our most important seminars in this respect. Although large numbers of lone parents are being enabled to get back into work, a significant proportion are still not in work. The interface with skills and education is critical. From local office level through to ministerial level at Whitehall, we have good connections with those in the world of education and skills.

Patrick Cormack: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the enigmatic answer given by the Minister for Work a few minutes ago and say which of the statistics regarding young people is correct? Are 4,500 young people out of work or 244,000? Which is right?

Malcolm Wicks: Because of the need to be absolutely accurate about these statistics, I think it best to write to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who raised the point. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] The crucial thing, which the Opposition often do not want to hear, is that the new deal for young people has been a great success. With just a few exceptions, we have virtually eradicated the problem of long-term youth unemployment. People should celebrate that, because it involves a lot of work from young people, my colleagues in the Department and employers. It is a cause for celebration, not cynicism and sarcasm.

Glenda Jackson: One frustration for some of my long-term unemployed constituents is that they seem to be precluded from entering courses to reskill and retrain them that are for longer than one day a week. Will my hon. Friend examine the situation, and will people who have been put on a course that they discover is not meeting their needs be able to change easily to another, more suitable, course?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes. As I have indicated, we need to learn from our constituents. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would write to me with individual experiences. In all sorts of ways, not least with our basic skills initiative, which deals with the fact that too many adults struggle with literacy and numeracy, we have a very joined-up approach with the Department for Education and Skills. We are screening people in jobcentres to test their literacy and numeracy. We are trying in all sorts of other ways to put the rhetoric of lifelong learning into practice. I repeat that we need to learn, and I am happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will recall from earlier exchanges that not only do we not have a jobcentre in the Vale of York, there is no prospect of a Jobcentre Plus. Will he take up the case of Mr. Potter, who has been sent from pillar to post through a variety of offices? He lost his job in the farming industry in the autumn of last year and it has taken two months for a letter to be transferred to the Minister's Department from another. Will he try to help Mr. Potter to obtain unemployment benefit from the day that he lost his job?

Malcolm Wicks: I apologise for any delay. I will take up the case of the hon. Lady's constituent. We have not yet announced all our plans, but in those rural areas that may not have a Jobcentre Plus, we need to think hard about how to provide an adequate service. We can do that through the telephone and through the internet for some. We need to join up with other local agencies to provide the service and must be sensitive to the needs of rural areas. Although there will be a large number of Jobcentre Plus offices throughout the country, some areas will not have that facility as such, and we are thinking hard about how to ensure that the hon. Lady's constituents and those in similar areas receive the service that they deserve. Meanwhile, I will take up her constituent's case.

Final Salary Pensions

Tony Lloyd: What recent discussions he has had with the CBI and employer organisations on final salary pensions.

Geraint Davies: What response he has made to representations from the TUC and others to encourage the continued provision of final salary pensions.

Ian McCartney: We have frequent contact with both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress to discuss a range of pensions issues, including final salary pension schemes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made clear in his recent speech to the TUC conference, it has to be worth while for employees to save, confident in what they will get in return, and easy for employers to contribute. We need a framework that builds partnership in pension provision not mutual aversion to responsibility.

Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend recall the so-called employers pensions holiday, when they ceased to make contributions to pension schemes? It was actually more like a pensions strike. Is he aware that one strong motivation for getting rid of final salary pension schemes is that, even on the better alternatives, employers save up to a third of their costs? That means that employees receive a final pension much worse than they had anticipated. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that employers recognise that they must make a contribution?

Ian McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Like him and all my ministerial colleagues, I want a maximisation of employer contributions as an investment in their work force. The whole point of the simplification review and the discussions is to develop a partnership between the Government, employers and trade unions so that each of us takes responsibility for every aspect of developing a pensions policy for the future that will guarantee investment and a secure pension. During the next few weeks, when the reviews are published, I hope that there will be productive discussions with the CBI, the TUC and others to ensure that when the Government set out their radical approach to those matters there will be a common, binding agreement on the way forward.

Geraint Davies: When my right hon. Friend reviews pensions facilities and the partnership for the provision of pensions to which he referred, will he examine the fundamental relationship between employer contributions, employee contributions and state contributions? In doing so, will he consider the Australian model, which requires a certain level of employer compulsion in respect of any named pension fund in exchange for tax relief and productivity deals, in the knowledge that the only certain way of obtaining long-term pension contributions is by getting more jobs? That is something that we are doing and that the Opposition never did.

Ian McCartney: I am absolutely certain that, with those involved in the simplification review and in preparing the reports, the Government will consider a range of issues, including international comparisons, to try to encourage investment by employers. When the review is published we can join in a debate, after which I hope that we shall see the way forward to ensure a secure future both for deferred pensioners—those who are currently investing but who are not yet pensioners—and for those who are pensioners already.

David Ruffley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Robert Maxwell-style pension raid is costing the average contributing member of a pension scheme £400 a year. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say sorry to those pension holders?

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck asking that question, when there was a £34 billion mis-selling of pension funds under a Tory Government. It took the Labour Government to make sure that money was put back. A Conservative Government halved the value of SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme—took it off widows and forgot to tell them about it. This Government put that money back. A Conservative Government put 3 million people on the dole and those people lost pension rights because of it. Grow up.

Andrew Mitchell: Surely the Minister understands that everyone knows that the Government's response to the crisis in the pensions industry has been woefully inadequate. Will he admit that the £5 billion a year raid on pension funds was a dreadful error of judgment? As the Secretary of State is in the mood to apologise today, will he also apologise on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the millions of people who face a lower income in their retirement?

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is another man with a record as long as his arm. He was a pensions Minister who made such a botched job of it that his constituents rightly got rid of him. Perhaps he would like to tell us about the letter that he received from the—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question—Opposition Members may not like the answer—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have some calm in the Chamber.

Ian McCartney: I am not sure why it is, but every time that I stand at the Dispatch Box, the Conservatives get excited.
	On 7 March, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) received a letter from the Opposition spokesperson on pensions, who asked him to prepare a plan for the privatisation of the basic state pension. Perhaps he will stand up and apologise to the House for trying to get rid of the basic state pension.

David Winnick: Should we not make it absolutely clear that the full responsibility for ending such schemes lies with employers, and that they must be held accountable? Going back to what was said earlier, is it not sickening that while so many employees could well be driven into acute financial hardship, if not poverty, in their retirement, those who make the decisions—the directors—are rewarding themselves with fat cat pension schemes, option schemes, bonuses and the rest to ensure that, when they retire, they can live the lives of millionaires and multi-millionaires? The contrast between the two is obscene.

Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been greed and greed with great excess. There is no doubt about that, but in simply saying that fat cats are wrong, we have got to do something about long-term stability and arrangements for the basic state pension, the state contribution and the private sector contribution to the future of pensions. That is what the Pickering review is about. At least the Government are prepared to advocate proposals on behalf of pensioners and to introduce schemes to eradicate the poverty that exists, a new pension scheme to prevent it in future and a new partnership between the Government on one hand and employers and trade unions on the other to ensure investment by employers in pension schemes and the certainty that when people retire they get a fair pension for the contribution that has been made.

David Willetts: May I tell the Minister that the CBI and the TUC were represented at our pensions summit last week? He might try getting them together as well. Does he agree with the TUC that the United Kingdom pensions system is in crisis? What does he think of the latest evidence of that crisis? The Caparo steel group, which is headed by a Labour peer, Lord Paul, is trying to close down its final salary pension scheme. Lord Paul is trying to get his workers into the Government's pet stakeholder scheme instead. So a Labour peer is trying to impose a Labour policy on members of a trade union affiliated to the Labour party, and what is the reaction? They take industrial action in protest. Something is seriously wrong with the Government's pensions policies if members of a Labour-affiliated trade union are taking industrial action against the policies that the Government are pursuing.

Ian McCartney: My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman's summit was more of a molehill than a summit and that he made virtually no contribution to the debate on pensions. It was nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt.
	The hon. Gentleman mocks stakeholder pensions. In a year, more than 800,000 people who did not have a pension vehicle for their retirement have now got one and more than 90 per cent. of employers who did not provide access to one now do so, but that is only a start.
	As for the former members of British Steel, the hon. Gentleman should remember that his Government stood back and allowed that company to be butchered and tens of thousands of jobs—not just pensions—were lost in steel and mining communities. The whole purpose of the stakeholder pension arrangements and the simplification review is to get the common agreement of employers, first, to continue with defined benefit schemes; secondly, where those schemes do not exist, to get stakeholder pensions where employers have never before contributed to employees in the labour market; and, thirdly, to get a new partnership between employers, the Government and trade unions. If we can achieve that during the debates that will take place this summer following the simplification review, we will have gone a long way to establishing a new pensions settlement in Britain.

Funded Pension Schemes

Bob Spink: What recent assessment he has made of the viability of funded pension schemes.

Ian McCartney: Funded provision is crucial to overall pension provision in the United Kingdom. If it is to remain viable, we need to ensure that we have an appropriate level of regulation and the right incentives to encourage employers and employees to contribute to pensions. That is why we have commissioned the Pickering and Sandler reviews, which will be published in the next few weeks.

Bob Spink: Now that the Government have admitted that, like Enron, they gave false figures, will they admit two specific points: first, that the number of people benefiting from occupational pensions is now 10 per cent. lower than when they took office in 1997 and, secondly, that the proportion of money saved by British households last year fell to the lowest level since records began? Will the Government try to correct that situation and help those on funded pension schemes by now withdrawing the £5 billion pensions tax that they imposed?

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman never ceases to amaze us. I and my colleagues gave information to the House on the basis of an independent analysis. When challenged about that analysis, we rightly said that, the analysis being independent, Ministers had given the House the information that was available. As the hon. Gentleman can confirm, when it became clear that there was a need for a review and as soon as Ministers knew that the answer that I had given in good faith to the House could be questioned, we informed the hon. Member concerned, and spoke to him personally. At 3.30 pm, we will put forward proposals to ensure that an effective response is made in respect of my answer.
	More importantly, in this complex area, the last Government continued to give wrong information in a non-independent way. We have initiated a review by independent experts, and I hope that there will be an agreed settlement on how, in future, we publish statistics in this area. The hon. Gentleman's Government failed to inform people about their entitlement to SERPS, which cost widows about £1 billion a year. When Labour Ministers find that there is a problem, at least we report it to the House immediately and take action to rectify it.

John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best incentives that could be given for pensions would be to establish a minimum amount of money that employers must contribute—9 per cent., for example—to ensure that workers would also put in their money?

Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend is right that employers need to make contributions to pension schemes. In general, we would agree with that. I would like to wait, however, to see whether the Pickering review recommends further action on compulsion. I want to make it absolutely clear that Ministers want to ensure that the review gives an incentive to employers to contribute, and to continue to contribute, to the pensions of their employees. It is in everybody's interests, including employers, that they invest in their employees' future through pensions.

Crisis Loan Payments

David Heath: What proportion of crisis loan payments were made in response to alignment claims in the last 12 months.

Malcolm Wicks: Social fund alignment payments provide valuable help to people awaiting their first payment of wages on taking up work. They also help people with essential day-to-day living expenses in advance of their first payment of benefit. During 2001–02, just under half of crisis loans were made through alignment payments.

David Heath: Is not it extraordinary that the crisis loan fund, which is cash-limited and which is there to help the poorest of our constituents in the most extreme circumstances, is largely pre-empted by payments that, effectively, are made as a result of administrative delay? I am not denying that payments must be made in that instance, but I am not sure that they should be made from that fund. When the Minister wrote to me on 14 May, he said that he was considering this matter, and that new guidelines would be issued. He said that a review would be done on a region-by-region basis. Have those things yet been accomplished?

Malcolm Wicks: I do not accept that alignment payments are made predominantly because of delays. It may interest the House to know that, during 2001–02, income support claims were cleared, on average, within 9.7 days of all relevant information being received, which is less than our target of 12 days. Similarly, we are performing well in terms of incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance. Alignment payments are becoming better known by our claimants, which may be a factor, but there may be an issue in relation to our procedures. I can therefore confirm that we are currently considering the detailed guidance that we offer to our staff on this aspect of crisis loans. The guidance is expected to be with staff by mid-July.

James Clappison: Is not the fact of the matter that alignment payments are made to compensate for other payments that recipients should have received from the Government, and that, in a way, part of the crisis fund is being spent on crises created by the Government? Has not the proportion of the crisis fund so allocated substantially increased since 1997, and does not it now stand at 40 per cent. of the crisis fund, as the Minister had to admit in a written answer that he gave to me correcting, properly, incorrect information—more incorrect information—that he had given in a previous written answer? Will the Government now take urgent action to ensure that funds are not diverted from vulnerable people in that way and that the Government act promptly and efficiently in their benefit payments?

Malcolm Wicks: I think that there is some misunderstanding about this issue. When people first apply for benefit, they may have to wait some days before they receive it. If they are in urgent need, they will receive an alignment payment. Similarly—although in a smaller percentage of cases—if people have a job and are waiting for their first wage packet, one of the alignment payments may be made. I suspect that there is some confusion because the payments are paid through crisis loans. However, as I have said, although there are a number of factors behind the trend, we are looking at the matter carefully. We will issue the new guidance later this month.

Private Pensions Industry

Michael Jack: What plans he has to publish a pensions White Paper on the state of the private pensions industry.

Ian McCartney: The Sandler review into long-term savings and the Pickering simplification review are due to report shortly. The Government will then consult on proposals in the autumn.

Michael Jack: In thanking the Minister for that answer, may I say that his combative approach to previous questions and his attacks on the previous Conservative Government are no way to respond to the real fears of people about whether they will have anything like a long-term income from their pensions? On the very day that The Times carries articles questioning the strength of our insurance companies, may I ask the Minister to bring together all the arguments about employees and employers in a White Paper that will review the whole desperate pension situation?

Ian McCartney: This Government have acted already. We have introduced the state second pension, which means that 14 million low-paid workers will for the first time receive an additional pension as well as the basic state pension. We have made advances in that 2 million carers and 2 million people with disabilities who were outside the system will receive an additional pension in the form of the stakeholder pension. We have sorted out the Tory Government's mis-selling of pensions, we have sorted out SERPS and we have introduced the simplification review.
	I have said on at least three occasions today that, when the reviews by Sandler and Pickering are in the public domain, the Government will publish their response to them this autumn. At that point, I will be more than happy to debate the future of pensions with the right hon. Gentleman. Three points apply to the future of pensions. The first is that employers accept their responsibility, the second is that the Government accept theirs and the third is that there should be vehicles that will enable employees to start investing in their own future. When we have got all those three pillars in place, we can modernise the state pension and the contributions that employers and employees make and will be able to secure pensions for the future.

Vincent Cable: When the Minister looks further at private pension schemes, will he agree to consider the case of Parsons Energy and Engineering in south-west London? That American company has not merely closed its final salary scheme to existing as well as new employees, but has halved the pension entitlement arbitrarily. Does he not agree that the trusteeship arrangements are far too weak to prevent cowboy capitalists of that kind from stealing from their own pensions funds?

Ian McCartney: I do not have all the details of that case but, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be more than willing to meet him and his colleagues to discuss this matter. I will then subsequently give or not give advice as appropriate to the circumstances.

Voluntary Sector (Pensions)

Parmjit Dhanda: What action he is taking to promote pension take-up among voluntary sector workers.

Maria Eagle: The Government are committed to ensuring that everybody gets a decent income in retirement and to promoting pension provision among all groups of workers, including those in the voluntary sector

Parmjit Dhanda: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that, when groups in the voluntary sector bid for extra funds for local campaigns, as is the case in my constituency of Gloucester, they sometimes find that, although the money can be used to help to employ extra staff, local campaigners or case workers, it is difficult to make up the employers contribution? However, if such groups put in an extra bid in the first instance to make up that money, the Government can help them. Therefore, will her Department do more to emphasise the fact that such groups can be supported if they make it clear that they wish money for such contributions to be part of their bid?

Maria Eagle: Good employers who want to get good staff will make proper pension provision a part of the package that they offer. Following the introduction of stakeholder pensions, many voluntary sector employers will have to designate stakeholders and therefore offer their employees a low-cost excellent new vehicle to ensure that they can save for their retirement.
	In terms of awareness raising, it is crucial that the Government and others get across to employees and employers the importance of saving for retirement. In that regard we have high hopes that the new combined pension forecasting will enable employees and employers to see just what kind of pensions they are likely to retire on. It may well also provide a boost to ensure that people save more for their retirement.

G8 Summit

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the G8 Summit in Canada. Copies of all the documents agreed at the summit have been placed in the House Libraries. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Chrétien for his excellent leadership at the meeting.
	This was the first meeting of G8 leaders since 11 September. We reviewed progress made in tackling terrorism, including steps taken to cut off terrorists' sources of financing, and action in Afghanistan and globally against al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. I set out detailed UK proposals for curbing opium production in Afghanistan, which is the source of some 90 per cent. of the heroin on our streets, and we agreed collectively to step up efforts to deal with this menace. We also agreed a set of practical measures to enhance the security of the global transport system.
	The events of 11 September proved beyond doubt that terrorists will use any means to attack our countries and our people. We therefore agreed at Kananaskis to launch a new global partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and so help ensure that these deadly materials cannot fall into the hands of terrorist groups. The world's largest stocks of sensitive nuclear and chemical materials are in the countries of the former Soviet Union, above all in Russia. The G8 therefore agreed collectively to raise up to $20 billion over the next 10 years to fund projects under the global partnership. Among our priority concerns are the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines and the employment of former weapons scientists. As part of this programme, the UK plans to commit up to $750 million spread over the next decade.
	We also discussed pressing regional issues. On the middle east, G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the two-state vision first set out in the Saudi peace initiative: a state of Israel, secure and accepted by its Arab neighbours, living side by side in peace with a stable and well governed state of Palestine. We called for continuing efforts also on India and Pakistan.
	The Kananaskis summit also marked a major shift in the G7's relationship with Russia. G7 leaders agreed that Russia will assume the G8 presidency in 2006 and host our summit that year. Taken together with agreement by both the European Union and the United States to grant Russia market economy status, and with the launch of the new NATO/Russia Council, these moves constitute a significant further step in building a strong partnership with Russia on security and economic issues. The next step is Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation.
	But the main focus of the summit was Africa. Let me remind the House why. The tragedy of Africa is that it is a rich continent whose people are poor. Africa's potential is enormous, yet a child in Africa dies of disease, famine or conflict every three seconds. These are facts that shame the civilised world. In Genoa last July, G8 leaders agreed to draw up a comprehensive action plan for Africa. Central to this proposal was the concept of a deal: that African Governments commit themselves to economic, political and governance reforms, and that the G8 responds with more development assistance, more debt relief and greater opportunities for trade.
	Over the past year, African leaders have developed the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NEPAD. This is an African-led initiative, which puts good governance at its heart. African countries have pledged to raise standards of governance and have committed themselves to a peer-review mechanism that will provide an objective assessment against these new standards. In response, at Kananaskis the G8 published its action plan for Africa. The plan sets out specific measures in eight areas, and I shall deal with some of them.
	Peace and stability are preconditions for successful development everywhere, and especially in Africa. Eight million Africans have died in conflicts in the last 20 years. The G8 committed to intensify efforts to promote peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sudan, two of Africa's bloodiest wars, and to consolidate the peace efforts now being made in Angola and Sierra Leone.
	For the long term, we need to develop the peacekeeping capacity of African countries themselves. We agreed that by 2003 we will have in place a joint plan to build regional peacekeeping forces, trained and helped by us. But we must also tackle the underlying issues that so often drive conflict. We pledged our support for the UN initiative to monitor and address the illegal exploitation and international transfer of natural resources from Africa which fuel armed conflicts, including mineral resources, petroleum, timber and water, and to support voluntary control efforts such as the Kimberley process for diamonds.
	Around 50 million children in Africa are not in school of any kind. We agreed therefore to implement the education taskforce report, prepared for the summit, which will significantly increase bilateral aid for basic education for African countries that have a strong policy and financial commitment. Recent analysis by the World Bank sets out clearly which policies work. We agreed that where countries have those policies in place, we will ensure that they have sufficient external finance to meet the goal of universal primary education by 2015.
	We also agreed to continue our efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS through the new global health fund, and G8 countries committed to provide the resources necessary to eradicate polio from Africa by 2005. Twenty-six countries, including 22 in Africa, have already benefited under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries, or HIPC, initiative, receiving about $62 billion in debt relief. Eventually, 37 countries are expected to benefit.
	At Kananaskis the G8 agreed to provide up to an additional $1 billion for the HIPC trust fund. That will help to ensure that those countries whose debt position has worsened, because of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices, will get enough debt relief to ensure that they are able to exit HIPC with sustainable levels of debt.
	On trade, we agreed to make the WTO Doha round work for developing countries, particularly in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to conclude the negotiations no later than 1 January 2005 and, without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations, to apply that Doha commitment to comprehensive negotiations on agriculture aimed at substantial improvements in market access and reductions in all forms of export subsidies with a view to their being entirely phased out.
	At Monterrey in February the international community pledged to increase official development assistance by $12 billion a year from 2006. In Kananaskis the G8 agreed that at least half of that new money would go to reforming African countries, for investment in line with NEPAD's own priorities. That is a substantial commitment by any standards—an additional $6 billion a year for the world's poorest continent. It recognises Africa's needs, but it is also a strong signal of the G8's confidence that the commitments that African leaders are making under NEPAD really will transform the environment in which our aid is invested.
	The UK will contribute its share of those additional resources. I can tell the House that we expect UK bilateral spending on Africa to rise from around £650 million a year now to £1 billion by 2006—three times the level that we inherited from the last Conservative Government.
	President Mbeki of South Africa said of the plan that
	"there has never been an engagement of this kind before, certainly not between Africa and the G8 . . . it is a very, very good beginning."
	President Obasanjo from Nigeria called it a
	"historic moment for Africa and for the whole relationship between the developed and developing world".
	Africa is not a hopeless continent, as some have described it. Uganda, for example, has reduced poverty by 20 percentage points in the last 10 years, and growth has averaged around 7 per cent. a year. HIPC debt relief and aid have been used to help to provide free primary education. As a result, enrolment has doubled, putting millions of children into school. Mozambique has seen growth of 9 per cent. in the past 4 years, and Tanzania is now providing free primary education. As a result of courageous new policies, Mali has reduced poverty dramatically in the past 4 years.
	Of course, we need to do more—much more—but for the first time there is a comprehensive plan, dealing with all aspects of the African plight. For the first time, it is constructed with reforming African leaders as partners, not as passive recipients of aid. For the first time, we link explicitly and clearly good governance and development.
	So this is not our destination—of an African renaissance—achieved, but it is a new departure. It is a real signal of hope for the future, and it is up to us now to make it a reality. I am proud of the part that Britain has played in it. There are those who say that Africa matters little to the British people. The millions who donate to charities—who give up time, energy and commitment to the cause of Africa—eloquently dispute this. Africa does matter: to us and to humanity. We intend to see the plan through.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for giving me early sight of his statement? Kananaskis was the first G8 gathering since 11 September, and we welcome the practical steps agreed there to fight international terrorism, and to prevent the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. In particular, Kananaskis marked another step in Russia's re-emergence on the world stage, and I believe it right that the G8 should help to reduce her nuclear stockpiles, and very fitting that Russia will assume presidency of the G8 in 2006.
	We also welcome the G8's renewed commitment to supporting universal primary education in developing countries, and to assisting those countries in tackling the scourge of diseases such as AIDS, TB, malaria and polio. The progress made on international debt relief is also welcome, although we note that the sums involved barely make up for the fall in world commodity prices that has recently so affected developing economies. The Prime Minister is right to herald the G8's meeting with African presidents and the UN Secretary-General to discuss the New Partnership for Africa's Development as a step in the right direction. However, only last October the Prime Minister told his party conference that a partnership for Africa meant
	"no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe."
	I agreed with him. Does he still stand by that clear statement, and if so, does he not think that the G8 missed an opportunity to send a stark signal to dictators by using the example of Robert Mugabe to show that there will be no meaningful partnership for development with countries that do not respect political freedom and the rule of law?
	The G8 summit could have demanded fresh presidential elections in Zimbabwe; it could have co-ordinated sanctions between the EU and north America; and it could have shown that we mean what we say about good governance in the African continent. Did the Prime Minister argue for those things at the conference, and if so, does he not agree that it is deeply disappointing that Zimbabwe did not merit a mention in the communiqué or in his statement?
	The G8 pledged itself
	"to work for peace in the Middle East, based on our vision of two states living side by side within secure and recognised borders".
	It also talked of
	"the agreement on the urgency of reform of Palestinian institutions and its economy, and of free and fair elections".
	Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said that, in his view, Yasser Arafat has
	"an attitude towards terrorism which has been inconsistent with the notion of Israel's security."
	Does the Prime Minister believe that a Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat can ever be consistent with the notion of Israel's security, or does he agree with Secretary Powell, who said yesterday that if the Palestinians
	"don't bring in new leaders, then we shouldn't expect . . . approaches"
	that may be new or otherwise? Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement or the previous one?
	Today, we learn that the United States is threatening to veto the extension of UN peacekeeping operations in Bosnia unless American troops are granted immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Did the Prime Minister discuss that with President Bush and other G8 leaders during the summit? Ten days ago, the Defence Secretary told the House,
	"On the ICC, the Government negotiated an effective immunity".—[Official Report, 20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 413.]
	Last week, however, he told a Select Committee that
	"immunity is not quite the right word".
	Which is it? Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us what our position is.
	Was the Prime Minister not aware of grave misgivings, which we share, that the court could be used maliciously to put our soldiers in the dock merely for carrying out their duties—[Interruption.] Labour Members may complain, but the French have been able to negotiate immunity for their troops for the next seven years as a condition of signing up to the ICC. When we sought in the course of debate to introduce similar protection, that was rejected, even though it was for British troops. Will the Prime Minister tell us once and for all what protection, if any, our troops will have, apart from the judgment of the ICC—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please let the Leader of the Opposition speak.

Iain Duncan Smith: They hate it when they get difficult questions as they never hear the answer—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister agree with the criticism of the United States launched by the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday in the media and the newspapers? If Kananaskis is to be remembered, it will be judged by what it achieves for southern Africa, especially the 13 million people starving in that region. This is an opportunity to strike up a genuine partnership with Africa that will endure beyond the following day's headlines. It is a two-way street, however, offering long-term assistance delivered to an agreed timetable from the developed world in return for a genuine commitment by developing countries to improve the governance of their people. But it takes action, not just words. If, with all the might at its disposal, and with the Prime Minister at the conference, the G8 cannot even bring itself to demand change in Zimbabwe, what hope is there for the rest of Africa?

Tony Blair: If I may say so, I thought that that was an extraordinary demonstration of the right hon. Gentleman's priorities. I make no apology whatever for using the vast majority of the statement to deal with Africa. It was extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman had more to say about the International Criminal Court than the state of Africa. I shall deal with the issue of Zimbabwe, but first I shall deal with the International Criminal Court, which the Conservatives supported when it was debated in the House. At the time, a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said:
	"It is a great shame that in the negotiations at Rome, where our team and others bent over backwards to try and assuage the fears of the USA . . . the USA ultimately felt that it could not join the countries that signed up".
	Another Conservative spokesman said:
	"I urge the Government to introduce legislation to allow us to ratify the statute in order to realise their intention that we should be among the first 60 states to do so".—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 934–36.]
	There is therefore a tinge of opportunism in the Conservatives' stance today. We have taken our position because we were advised that as a result of the safeguards in place—in particular the issue of complementarity, which means that provided that a nation state is capable of trying people for any crimes, the ICC does not have jurisdiction—it is inconceivable that our peacekeepers would be brought before the court in that way. The best test of whether that is correct or not is what has happened with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which has been running for seven years and has far more intrusive powers than the ICC. In those seven years, not one peacekeeper has been up before the court. The ICC is designed to deal with people committing war crimes or genocide, and I believe that that is right. I entirely understand the concerns of the United States of America, which are perfectly legitimate. Our view, however, is that they are met by the principles that I set out and the constraints on the international court's development.
	On Zimbabwe, let me make it clear that it will not benefit in any way from the African plan, precisely because of the outrageous conduct of the Zimbabwean Government. That is why it is so important that the plan makes it clear that only the countries that engage in good governance will qualify for the extra aid and assistance. As for what we should do about Zimbabwe, at every level—in the European Union and elsewhere, in the negotiations with the United States—of course we raise the matter.
	I looked very carefully at the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary when he was lambasting the Government for our position on Zimbabwe. I could not find a single sensible, constructive suggestion from him to deal with the matter. This is a classic instance of the Conservatives seizing on an issue, running with it hard, and having nothing but sheer vacuous nonsense to say about it.
	On HIPC, the right hon. Gentleman speaks about the sum barely making up the difference. Let us be clear. When the Government came to office, we had nothing like the help in place for Africa on debt relief or anything else. What we have done through the additional aid means that billions of dollars of debt relief will be saved for those countries, so that the money can be put into education. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. [Hon. Members: "We did."] Well, I suppose that it was a welcome of sorts. It is one of the features of the Conservatives that although in general they are against spending any money, in particular they are always in favour of spending more.
	On the middle east, in relation to Chairman Arafat, let me repeat what I said last week. I believe that if the middle east is to have a chance of getting the peace process that it needs, we need serious people to negotiate with. I have said why I believe that Chairman Arafat has let down the Palestinian people, in particular by rejecting the deal that was offered by Prime Minister Barak: he did a huge disservice to the process of peace in the middle east.
	It is for the Palestinians, of course, to decide whom they elect. We are not in a position to decide that for them, but the point that we must make and that the Americans are making is that if they end up electing leadership that is not serious about partnering the peace process, it will be difficult to make the changes that we want. That is the reality, and it is why we and the Americans have both been saying it. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the vast majority of countries agree.
	In particular, leaving aside for a moment the issue of Chairman Arafat, the key thing that the Bush speech did, and the reason why I think that it should be strongly supported, is that it set out the following principles, which are vital for progress: security for the Palestinian people, and a proper security infrastructure rebuilt; political reform of the Palestinian institutions—that is vital—en route to a viable Palestinian state, living side by side with a secure of Israel. As a result, if there are those changes on the Palestinian side, there must be from Israel in return the commitment to an end to settlements, withdrawal from the occupied territories, and a resolution of the issue on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
	That is what is important. I believe that we have the basis of a forward plan for the middle east that can work. I believe that it will work, but only if we make sure that those principles are properly implemented. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that the attempt to make differences between ourselves and the Americans may suit the Opposition, but it does not suit the peace process at all.
	Finally, let me deal with the point that the right hon. Gentleman made, in so far as he dealt with Africa at all. He said that this announcement is a deal. Yes, it is, and it gives us an important chance to make a way forward for Africa, but let us not believe that the whole of Africa is encapsulated in Zimbabwe. It is not. I am pleased to say that, increasingly, Zimbabwe is the exception in Africa, not the rule. At the same time as we take the possible action—not the impossible action—against Zimbabwe, let us congratulate those African leaders on their boldness in coming forward with the initiative, let us support it, and let us make sure that the Africa plan, which initiates the process, is carried through with the determination and vigour that has given rise to it.

Charles Kennedy: Although all sane and democratic-thinking people throughout the world will acknowledge the importance of the summit, not least as another essential reaffirmation of the fight against international terrorism, which poses the most fundamental threat to us all, I think that the Prime Minister will accept that despite the progress achieved, there were elements of serious disappointment about the summit.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, not least when we hear some of the more strident tones on this side of the Atlantic as well as on the other side, that an important lesson is that progress can be best effected through efficient international institutions in which countries play a constructive role and do not run with the tide of short-term populist opinion, which, when it comes to unilateralism, far less isolationism, history proves does not work and will not deliver? Does he agree that that is an important conclusion to emerge from the weekend and from the events that have followed on since the summit itself?
	Specifically, in welcoming the reaffirmation statement about the middle east process, will the right hon. Gentleman again take the opportunity to underscore the fact that it never looks good for international countries, democratically based, to be seen to be trying to dictate what other countries should be deciding, not least through a democratic process, however difficult the circumstances may be, where the leadership of those other countries and other states are concerned?
	Secondly, on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and given the importance that the Prime Minister rightly attached to the developing role of Russia on many fronts over coming years, was there any discussion, or did he have the opportunity to raise, the role of Russia in giving financial and practical support to Iran to develop a nuclear reactor? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is considerable international anxiety as to the use to which such a facility, such a capacity, could be put. Russia will be a major and primary beneficiary of the extra funds that are being deployed, to which the United Kingdom will be contributing. Has leverage been exerted on the Russian authorities in that respect?
	Thirdly, there is the central issue of African relief. Obviously, there will be a great welcome for the progress that has been achieved. The Prime Minister quoted the World Bank, but will he acknowledge that the bank has said in the context of what was achieved—that is the progress that was made at the G8 summit—that many of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries will still have unsustainable levels of built-in debt for a long time to come? Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, this can be only the beginning of the process. It is by no means the termination of a process.
	Finally, I return to the important lesson of international co-operation. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, as a party that has long since supported the International Criminal Court, will he confirm again that this country will continue its commitment in that direction, and point out to the American Administration the fundamental error of their ways in that respect?

Tony Blair: Of course, we support the International Criminal Court. It is a commitment that we inherited from the previous Government. That is quite apart from our own position.
	As for the United States and the Palestinian Authority, it is important to be clear about what the United States is and is not saying. The United States is not saying that the Palestinians cannot choose who they want. They can choose who they want. The United States is merely saying that if the Palestinians choose someone who is not a serious partner for peace, that will make it far more difficult to conduct negotiations, and frankly I agree with that.
	As for the WMD, it is true that there are worries about Iran's nuclear weapons programme. There are also worries about other countries' nuclear weapons programmes. However, the WMD focuses specifically on the countries of the former Soviet Union. That is important because it is in those countries that there are large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. There is the nuclear programme, and so on. They need help to clean up the nuclear submarines, for example, and we should give them that assistance.
	In relation to the African situation and NEPAD, the truthful position is that, of course, there is a lot more that must be done. It is true that we will make a significant impact on the situation, but we will not manage to deal with it all. However, we have made huge progress on where we were a few years ago. The fact is that we have a plan in place that allows us to deal with all the issues in a comprehensive way, increase aid and assistance in return for good governance and deal with issues such as conflict resolution, which are dramatically important in respect of this issue. It is no use dealing simply with issues of debt and aid; we must deal with debt and aid, trade, conflict resolution and some of the specific health and education issues. The benefit of the plan is that it gives us an overall framework within which we can work, but the political will must continue for many years.

Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which the G8 has handled relations with Russia. It is very important that signals are given to the Russian people that Russia is a welcome partner at the very top table because there is a role for the Russians to play. The Americans deserve congratulations on the funding provided for nuclear stocks improvements. Long before Europeans took the issue seriously, the Americans were contributing and trying to persuade the Russians to make their nuclear stocks safe. The contrast with the United States position on the International Criminal Court is odd, as it is moving in almost the opposite direction on that issue. An America that, at its best, gives leadership and, working together with the rest of the world, gives us all something to work towards, is equally one that at certain moments, as in dealing with the ICC, heads in completely the opposite direction and gives the world the wrong view, namely, that it wants to behave above and beyond international law. That is not possible even for the United States.

Tony Blair: What my hon. Friend says about the United States position on Russia and the problem of weapons of mass destruction is absolutely right—America has taken the lead on that issue. In relation to the ICC, America has a very clearly established position that it has held under both its current Administration and the previous one. We have an equally clear position, which has been held under both our current Administration and the previous one. It is important to recognise that there will be differences from time to time. However, it is wrong to see that as colouring the entire relationship. It is important to understand that, from time to time, on issues such as climate change or steel and the tariffs imposed in the United States, there will disagreements, but the broad basis of the relationship between this country and the United States is absolutely solid. It is a foundation stone of British foreign policy and will remain so, and it is absolutely vital that any people, from whatever quarter, who want to undermine it realise that that is not in the interests of this country, America or the wider world.

Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister made only the briefest reference to India and Pakistan. Will he expand on that, especially in the light of the very worrying report that al-Qaeda forces now seem to be moving into Kashmir? I am sure that he appreciates more than any of us the danger that will arise if such people start to fish in those exceptionally dangerously troubled waters.

Tony Blair: That is right—it is a very substantial danger. For that reason, it is important to ensure that Pakistan does all it can to prevent terrorists from crossing the border and the line of control there. There is evidence that it has stepped up its efforts significantly. I think that we have a respite from this issue, but we have not solved it by any means. What is important is that we redouble our efforts to ensure clear dialogue on the basis of an end to any form of Pakistani complicity in terrorism, and to ensure that, in response, there is proper dialogue between the two countries about all the issues between them, including Kashmir, so that the matter can be resolved as it should be—between two countries, rather than in the way in which it has been dealt with in the past few years. He is right to stress the very real and recurrent threat from al-Qaeda in Kashmir and elsewhere.

Tony Worthington: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership that he is giving on Africa, which contrasts significantly with the neglect and disengagement of 18 years of Conservative government.
	My right hon. Friend rightly spoke about NEPAD and the sense of partnership that it creates. That has to be so. One of the major problems is that the resources of Africa are not used for the people of Africa—they are robbed from them by corrupt elites and corrupt Governments. We must play our part by ensuring that northern firms do not support corruption and by backing the campaign that northern firms—such as BP, which has agreed to be part of it—should declare the money that they put into Africa so that the people of Africa know what is being given to their Governments and can identify the corrupt resources. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Tony Blair: I agree strongly. On my hon. Friend's first point, he is right, and that continues to be a major priority for the Government. His second point is also important. Part of the discussion at the G8 was about how we ensure that we put in place guidelines on the way in which companies operate in Africa. The more that companies report exactly what money they are paying to Governments, the more likely is transparency and therefore a reduction in corruption. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all that he has done in campaigning long and hard on the issue. It is partly because of the activities of people such as him that the matter now features so prominently on the agenda.

Tony Baldry: No fair-minded person would doubt the Prime Minister's commitment to Africa, but he must surely accept that the additional aid for Africa from the G8 summit is fairly niggardly. Given that President Bush, having announced the millennium challenge account at Monterrey, was not prepared to commit any further funds to Africa, would it not be more appropriate—rather than trying to pretend that something is there that is not there—to have a special summit for Africa that focuses on its real needs and tries to find the real resources that are necessary if we are to take it forward into the 21st century?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman's comments echo some of those made by the non-governmental organisations, but he is being a little unfair. The fact is that at Monterrey, as a result of the American commitment to an additional $5 billion and the European commitment to an additional $7 billion, there was a substantial uplift in aid. The agreement at Kananaskis was for countries to decide how much money they give in their own way, and we expected that half or more of that would go to Africa. Given that only two—perhaps three—of the G8 countries give as much as 50 per cent. to Africa, that is a big uplift in itself. Overall aid to sub-Saharan Africa—I speak from memory—is about $12 billion to $13 billion, so to increase that by 50 per cent. is fairly significant.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have to go far further, and we probably would have wanted to go further, but we still achieved a significant amount. Other things—I would single out conflict resolution—are as important as aid money. A particular view that I hold is that probably the single most important thing that we can do for central Africa is to get that conflict resolved and some stability in place. These are potentially rich countries, and if we can combine conflict resolution with access to our markets—it is scandalous how many tariffs against African goods remain in developed countries' markets—that, as much as the aid package, will contribute to the rebirth of Africa.

Helen Jackson: Was my right hon. Friend able to raise within the G8 the issue of American steel tariffs? Does he agree that that rather selfish unilateral action by such a major country flies in the face of the wider message that the G8 as a whole is trying to promote in the context of Africa, NEPAD and the wider development for which we all need to take responsibility?

Tony Blair: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We made it clear that we strongly disagree with imposing steel tariffs. We are seeking exclusions for British companies and I believe that approximately 20 have been granted. We are pressing for many more. Some 30,000 tonnes of British produce will be exempted, but we shall continue to press for more. Although I appreciate the American position, it is in the interests neither of world trade nor of the American steel industry. It is better to compete freely and openly.

Boris Johnson: The Prime Minister said that the Conservative party has no policies on Zimbabwe. I shall offer him one. I support Zimbabwe's exclusion from NEPAD, yet recently Mr. Mugabe was able to travel to Rome for a Food and Agriculture Organisation summit without a peep of protest from the Government. His chief of police, who is a very sinister man, was able to travel to Lyon, similarly without a peep of protest from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. Is not it insulting to the 3,000 white farmers who are about to be expelled by the end of August and the 800,000 black farmers and employees who have also been expelled by Mugabe's thugs to tell them that we can do nothing more to help them and that we cannot even enforce a travel ban on Robert Mugabe?

Tony Blair: The travel ban is enforced on Mr. Mugabe but he cannot be prevented from travelling to the Rome summit, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, let us be clear that whether or not he goes to the Rome summit will not affect the position in Zimbabwe. This can be done only by action by the other countries in the region and the ability of people in Zimbabwe to make a difference.
	If the Conservatives' great policy, which will lead to a change of Government in Zimbabwe, is to prevent Mr. Mugabe from travelling to Rome, it shows how far they are from reality and how close they are to opportunistically making political capital out of the matter.

Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on upholding the right of the Palestinian people to elect a President of their choice. I have returned from a working visit to Israel and the occupied territories during which I held discussions with people from a wide spectrum of opinion. I assure my right hon. Friend that a four-page speech by President Bush that contains two pages of instructions to the Palestinians and two paragraphs of exhortations to the Israelis will not advance the peace process that we all support, especially when the current charade of dismantling Israeli shanty town settlements leaves in place 145 settlements that violate international law. The decent Jewish leadership that took over from the British was able to suppress the terrorism of Begin and Shamir only when it had the integrity of an Israeli state to defend. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the genuine movement towards suppressing the evil terrorism among Palestinian extremist groups can happen only when a Palestinian state has its integrity to defend?

Tony Blair: First, I know that my right hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in and has spoken passionately and persuasively on the issue for many years. I am doing my best to help the process, and I believe that that means supporting America's initiative. A state is merely a constitutional theory unless it contains institutions that can give life to it.
	The most important priority is security and rebuilding the security infrastructure in the Palestinian territory. We will help in any way that we can to achieve that. The Americans are working urgently on plans to ensure that it is done. Let us suppose that we get a political process going again. We need a way to indemnify ourselves, if I can put it like that, against the next suicide bomb.
	If another suicide bomb explodes and terrible carnage ensues, and more civilians die and the process collapses, it will be a long time before we get another realistic process in place. We need a valid security infrastructure with integrity so that we can be sure that the Palestinian authorities are doing everything possible to bear down on terrorism. That would mean that if any extremists who wanted to wreck the process and were hostile to the concept of Israel managed to carry out a terrorist attack, it would not derail the process. In the longer term, however, there are elements in President Bush's speech that offer us a clear way forward, provided that we engage intensively to bring that about.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister fairly said that much needs to be done after this conference. May I remind him that, in March, a UN conference called for some 10 times more aid than was being offered at this most recent conference? Will he tell the House when the $60 billion being asked for by the African countries will be achievable, and when the all-important trade rules will be relaxed in Africa's favour?

Tony Blair: We have to deal in the realms of the possible. It is not possible to get $60 billion, but there has been a significant uplift in the aid given, and the debt relief programme is also extremely important. The idea is to get that flowing as quickly as possible. Countries such as ours have significantly uplifted their aid already. We are now providing somewhere in the region of double the amount of aid to Africa that we were a few years ago.
	On trade, the recommitment to the Doha process was absolutely vital—in particular, the focus on the phasing out of agricultural subsidies. The challenge for the developed world is to come up to the mark on the reality of our position on trade, so that it matches the rhetoric of free trade that we preach in the developed world. That involves arguing our position strongly in Europe, the World Trade Organisation and elsewhere, and we shall carry on doing that. We need the united support of the House and the help of other allies to do so.

Harry Barnes: Economic conflict and collapse in Africa often feed into wars and conflicts, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Behind that is often currency speculation, which produces the economic collapse in the first place. Is the G8 taking seriously the problems of currency speculation, and what proposals is it coming up with to deal with them?

Tony Blair: The most important thing we can do is to ensure that proper financial systems, and proper accounting standards for them, are in place—a process that we started in 1998. I do not favour measures such as the Tobin tax, or other taxes on currency speculation. The best security against financial collapse is the integrity of financial systems and proper accounting standards to ensure openness and transparency in the way in which countries—and, indeed, companies—operate. That is the best guarantee.

Michael Spicer: What did the Prime Minister tell the other G8 members about the dramatic fall in Britain's productivity rates in relation to world competitiveness that has taken place under his Government?

Tony Blair: I am pleased to say that I was able to report that the British economy was in a strong position, not merely in relation to productivity, but elsewhere. When I think back to the time when I was in opposition and the hon. Gentleman was a Minister—[Interruption.] If we look back 10 years, we see that this country is in a rather stronger economic position now than it was then. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to remind the House of the 15 per cent. interest rates, the unemployment that stood at more than 3 million, and the gross underinvestment in our public services at that time. So, I am pleased to say that I was able to give a rather better analysis of the state of the British economy than I would have been able to do when the hon. Gentleman was in office.

John Cryer: I was pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend had to say, particularly about debt and education. May I remind him that, more than a decade ago, almost as a direct result of International Monetary Fund policies in Rwanda, tuition fees were imposed on secondary school children there and, later, even on primary school children? As a direct result, those children were wandering the streets when the militias started recruiting and they consequently became involved in the civil conflict. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that he will do all he can to ensure that such policies are not pursued in any African country, and particularly in sub-Saharan Africa? Secondly, does he detect any inconsistency between the reactions in certain quarters to Mugabe and the previous reactions to Pinochet?

Tony Blair: I think I will leave the last part to general speculation.

Iain Duncan Smith: Answer the question.

Tony Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to shout protests of support for General Pinochet, he is perfectly entitled to do so. To be absolutely honest, that is on a par with the rest of his judgments on foreign policy. As for the other question—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should be advised against making sedentary interventions, as he is not very good at them.
	In relation to the first part of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), there is a serious issue about Rwanda. It is extremely important that we keep up support for Rwanda and I think that we are probably the largest single donor to it, but the key to that part of Africa is a stable resolution of the conflict. We will play our part in that and we are working far more closely, for example, with the French than ever before. All those issues, such as education, can be far better dealt with in that context.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Prime Minister comment on the Oxfam report published in April that shows that the European Union applies the highest tariff peaks against the world's poorest countries and also that the EU launches more anti-dumping measures against the developing world than America, Canada and Japan combined? What is he doing to puncture that hypocrisy in the EU, which pretends to be and promotes itself as the friend of the poor, but in reality keeps out their products?

Tony Blair: We are pressing very hard for Europe to change its position, which is important. Of course, the everything but arms initiative, which has been of help to some of the poorest countries, very much came about as a result of the initiatives taken by this Government, but I have to say that the only way we will get the EU to move is by being in a position of some influence in the EU, not on the sidelines of it. That is why I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's general position on Europe, and that of his Front Benchers.

Charlotte Atkins: I very much share and welcome the focus on Africa and the developing world, but during the discussions on agricultural subsidies was concern expressed about the recently passed United States Farm Bill, which massively increased production subsidies? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that that will undermine and jeopardise our efforts to reform the common agricultural policy?

Tony Blair: That is why it is important to try to knock down protectionism of all sorts, and concern was certainly expressed by the African countries about the United States Farm Bill and about the CAP. That is why it is important that we continue our efforts to reform the CAP, which would in any event be necessary as 10 additional countries are coming into the EU.

Peter Tapsell: Despite the Prime Minister's reaffirmation here today of his support for the Anglo-American alliance, has he noted that, since his recent talk with President Bush about Palestine, some commentators seem to think that the lengthening list of countries scheduled for regime change by the United States now includes the United Kingdom?

Tony Blair: I thank the hon. Gentleman, both for his contribution to the transatlantic friendship and for the implication of his statement that, certainly, the United Kingdom Government are unlikely to be changed by the Conservative Opposition—that is for sure. Let me say to him that there are people on the right of politics, such as him and the leader of the Conservative party, and some, indeed, on the left who want to cause trouble for this relationship wherever they possibly can. That is wrong, it is irresponsible and it is not in this country's national interest.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has ensured that the African agenda is so firmly on the G8 summit agenda. A moment ago, he said that conflict resolution is particularly important, but does he agree that tackling HIV/AIDS is almost equally important due to its capacity to undermine the ability of countries to deliver on the plan? He said that that is part of the plan, but will he say more about the importance he attaches to it and whether the plan is a robust, effective and realistic response to the issue?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is entirely right—HIV/AIDS is a major part of the problem in Africa, where millions of people have died of the disease in the past few years. The frustrating thing is that people know what works: we can see that in the programmes in Uganda and other countries that have taken effective action against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I think that I am right in saying that Africa is the only continent in the world where people's life expectations are falling rather than rising. That is blighting development in Africa.
	We established the global health fund, and we are putting money into it. We are also trying to ensure that pharmaceutical companies, drugs companies and others work with us to ensure that the drugs that provide people with the most effective treatment are freely available. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely—all these issues must be dealt with together. A major part of the efforts to improve the situation on HIV/AIDS is the investment in education, sex education and poverty reduction.

Laurence Robertson: Did the G8 summit consider the recent report by the Salvation Army, which warned of an impending crisis in sub-Saharan Africa partly because of the floods, but also paradoxically because of drought? The Salvation Army report warns of a serious starvation problem. If the G8 summit considered that report, what does it intend to do about the problem? If it did not, will the Prime Minister look into that report urgently?

Tony Blair: The Salvation Army and many others have been active on this issue, and I congratulate them on the position that they have taken. An important part of the deliberations had to do with water and sanitation. It was agreed at the G8 that that would form a major part of the discussions in South Africa in September. We hope that we will be able to put forward specific proposals for dealing with drought in sub-Saharan Africa.

Tam Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister expand on his significant references in his opening statement to foreign weapons scientists? Did he have Iraq in mind? Whatever one's views on Iraq, would not it at least be wise to have an endorsement from the G8 and the United Nations before contemplating further military bombing action?

Tony Blair: On the last point, I have nothing to add to what I have said on many occasions. On the first point, I did not have the weapons scientists in Iraq particularly in mind. Although it may seem strange and prosaic to say so, it is important to realise that large numbers of people are employed on those programmes and if we are not careful they may be poached and employed by rogue states or terrorist groups. Dealing with the scientists who have been engaged in these weapons of mass destruction programmes is an important part of the overall deal.

James Arbuthnot: The Prime Minister briefly mentioned heroin production in Afghanistan, which is a scourge not only on the streets of the west, but in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. Could he give more details of what steps were agreed to curb the production of Afghan heroin, given that it is estimated that about 90 per cent.—some say 98 per cent.—of the heroin in this country comes from Afghanistan?

Tony Blair: That is right: 90 per cent. or more of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan. I think that about 70 per cent. of total world production of heroin comes from Afghanistan. We are engaged in intensive efforts to destroy as much of the poppy crop as possible. For this year, we have achieved a certain level of success—not as much as we would want, but a significant percentage of the crop was destroyed. We have agreed at the G8 summit and elsewhere that we will step up those efforts for next year. That will include ensuring that the farmers in Afghanistan are given alternative sources of production, taking action against people who are trading and dealing in the drug, and in particular taking action at the borders of Afghanistan where the drugs leave that country.
	One startling fact is that if we analyse what happens on the ground, we discover that the farmers in Afghanistan do not make much money out of that crop; the money is made further down the line. I believe that it is possible to persuade farming communities to engage in a better, more sustainable, legal form of production. That is what we are trying to do, and the G8 agreed that we should step up those efforts.

Mike Gapes: I agree with the Prime Minister about the importance of our relationship with the United States. However, does he share my concerns that unilateralist action by the American Administration with regard to the International Criminal Court could lead to great instability in the Balkans and withdrawals from Kosovo and Bosnia? Does that not emphasise again the importance of the European Union countries working collectively for the common security and defence policy?

Tony Blair: My understanding is that discussions are continuing on the UN situation in Bosnia. I think that we should let those discussions continue and give them a fair wind.

John Redwood: When will the EU member states sit down to hammer out a thoroughgoing reform of the common agricultural policy? I am glad that the Prime Minister agrees that the way in which it prevents fair trade for African countries is a moral outrage. Is it not time for him to get his colleagues to do something about it?

Tony Blair: Those discussions continue the entire time. The right hon. Gentleman knows which interests are blocking reform. However, we have at least a better chance of achieving reform with the enlargement of the European Union, because if the common agricultural policy is not reformed at that stage the payments will be unacceptable. The United Kingdom, Germany and other countries are leading the charge on this; we must ensure that we overcome substantial resistance elsewhere. It will take some time, but that is what we will try to do.

Chris Bryant: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on efforts to reduce trafficking in heroin, not least because of the effect on south Wales valley constituencies where heroin use is becoming something of an epidemic. The next epidemic might well be crack cocaine. Was there any discussion at the G8 summit on international trafficking in crack cocaine?

Tony Blair: There was no specific discussion at the summit, but we are working with other countries that are faced by the same menace to take all and any action that we can to deal with the problem. This is a recent phenomenon—particular countries are sourcing this and particular organised gangs are trading in it. We are working very hard at a police and intelligence level to deal with it.

Andrew MacKay: Although we warmly welcome the G8 summit's concentration on the NEPAD proposals, and although I hope that the Prime Minister was correct in observing that Zimbabwe is the exception rather than the norm in Africa, may I put it to him that it was unfortunate that Zimbabwe was not criticised by the summit? Zimbabwe is heavily involved in the Congo civil war; its regime has singularly failed to feed the Zimbabwean people due to attacks on farmers, white and black; and the recent election was a classic case of corruption. If we are to ensure that all other African nations can respond to the NEPAD proposals positively, surely we should be seen to be taking action, bravely and correctly, against Zimbabwe at the G8 summit and elsewhere.

Tony Blair: Everything that the right hon. Gentleman says about Zimbabwe is right—the question is, what is the best way to effect change? My view is that the best way is to put all possible pressure on the African countries in the region that have the greatest ability to influence the situation. I was able, during the course of the G8 summit, to talk to President Mbeki and President Obasanjo about that. It is extremely important that we keep up that pressure and make it clear, as I have just done, that Zimbabwe cannot benefit from the African deal from NEPAD. We are obliged to give certain humanitarian assistance, but Zimbabwe will get no other assistance from us and from those other countries. I am afraid the tragedy is that change is most likely to come from the region or within. We must work in the most effective way possible.
	It is not really an issue of courage; our position on Zimbabwe is clear and open. Sometimes, being the country that always takes the lead does not help some of the opposition forces in Zimbabwe. The right hon. Gentleman probably realises that. However, we do everything that we can and if there are sensible and constructive suggestions as to what else we can do, we will certainly listen to them.

Point of Order

Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you use this opportunity to confirm that all hon. Members should be entitled to take up constituency cases as they see fit on the Floor of the House and through correspondence with Ministers and, where appropriate and with the full consent of the constituents concerned, possibly even with the media? If you confirm that, Mr. Speaker, will you condemn, as I do, the remarks of the president of the British Medical Association at the BMA conference in Harrogate today who said that we should not be allowed publicly to refer to cases of constituents who are patients in the national health service even when they have specifically asked us to do so? This comes dangerously close to being a breach of privilege of this House and should be condemned by you and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am confident that all Members of the House are conscious of the need to use our privilege of free speech responsibly and, in particular, to protect the privacy and dignity of individual members of the public.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	This short but important Bill was introduced in another place and, with cross-party support, made swift progress unamended through all its stages. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Scotland appreciated the support of the Opposition parties in the other place.
	The office of the Public Trustee was created by a Liberal Government in the Public Trustee Act 1906. That Act came about in response to a series of notorious defaults by trustees, who had usually disappeared with the trust funds. Prospective trustees, or those making wills, were thought to need a safe place to entrust their money so that the true beneficiaries would receive it. That was why the office of Public Trustee was invented—to provide a completely secure official in whom absolute trust could be reposed.
	Until recently, the Public Trustee was located in the Public Trust Office but following the 1999 report of the Public Accounts Committee into the Public Trust Office, and after recommendations in a quinquennial review, a refocused role for Public Trustee work was agreed. The Public Trust Office was re-launched as the Public Guardianship Office from 1 April 2001 and the trust work was transferred to the Official Solicitor's office, to be handled alongside his existing estates work.
	The present policy for both the Official Solicitor's estates work and the Public Trustee's trusts work is to accept new cases only as a public sector trustee of last resort. That means that the Public Trustee is available to act to protect the vulnerable or persons under legal disability—such as children or the mentally incapacitated—or where there is a social need to do so; for example, where there is a family dispute and an independent person needs to step in to protect the interests of members of the family. An extreme case might be where a father had killed his wife and was in prison, and someone needed to look after the interests of the children.
	Other examples of the Public Trustee acting as trustee of last resort include where no one else is suitable or able to do so and an injustice would otherwise result. For example, if the Public Trustee were not to accept appointment, a deceased's estate would not be dealt with because, for one reason or another, it would not be economical for the private sector to act.
	Commercially viable trusts that do not involve the need for special protection for people suffering from incapacity or those who are otherwise disadvantaged have been encouraged to transfer to the private sector. However, as a result of the 1999 changes and the transfer of such work, the accommodation and overhead charges for trust work increased significantly, particularly from 1 April 2001, while the income from trust work has reduced and is projected to continue to reduce.
	However, under section 9(4) of the Public Trustee Act 1906, there is a statutory requirement for full cost recovery for trust work. The only way that we can meet that requirement at present would be to increase fees, but the fee increases required to achieve full cost recovery would be extremely high. For this financial year, the increase would be about 100 per cent., and some of the clients affected by those fee increases would be very vulnerable people.
	A large number of the clients are elderly. There are also 50 cases where the Public Trustee looks after the interests of beneficiaries of vaccine damage or other compensation settlements. Another 100 cases involve mentally or physically disabled beneficiaries, and a further eight people benefit under charitable provisions.
	Some clients, particularly the elderly, rely on the income that they receive from their trust funds and others are reliant on the expectation of inheriting trust capital. Increasing administration fees for those people would reduce the amount of capital generating income and the amount of capital available for distribution. The Bill will therefore remove the requirement for full cost recovery for trust work to prevent those large increases in fees from occurring.
	We are also using this opportunity to regularise the position in relation to trust fees to bring fee setting for trust work in line with fee-setting provisions for other work. At the moment, the majority of fee-setting powers are held by the Minister with responsibility for the policy. However, under section 9(1) of the 1906 Act, the power to set fees for trust work is vested in the Treasury, although the sanction of the Lord Chancellor is needed. The Bill will transfer that power to the Lord Chancellor.
	The Bill will also repeal section 7 of the 1906 Act, which was an important part of the package that had been put together to reassure the public following the scandals that had occurred. It ensured that if an incumbent trustee stole the funds, or breached trust in dealing with them, the state would indemnify the beneficiary.
	The repeal of section 7 will do two things. First, it will remove the Consolidated Fund's liability to make good any sum required to discharge the Public Trustee's liability and will place that liability with the Lord Chancellor. Secondly, it will tidy up the position on the Public Trustee's liability to beneficiaries. In preparing the Bill, we found that the exception in section 7 had no legal effect and thus served no purpose, so we have taken this opportunity to remove it.
	As I have said, this is an important Bill, although short in length. It will ensure that we protect some extremely vulnerable clients of the Public Trustee from large increases in fees, while at the same time bringing up to date the financial requirements governing the work of the Public Trustee. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support it.

William Cash: This Bill is important in its way, and I am glad to allay the Minister's fears by assuring her that the Opposition do not intend to divide the House. It is an uncontroversial Bill. Indeed, during the Bill's passage in the other place, the proceedings were somewhat truncated—the Liberal Democrat spokesman managed only 16 lines of speech, while the official Opposition spokesman managed only 10 lines. We are not, therefore, trying to break any records by ensuring that we exceed that minimum standard. One or two things need to be said about the Bill, however, and I intend to detain the House for a little longer than the other place was detained.
	I knew the Public Trust Office extremely well, as, when I first got married, I was living in Lincoln's Inn Fields, exactly opposite it. I would also like to pay tribute to the Liberal party, if not to the Liberal Democrats, as, although it was claimed in the other place that it was their work, the original Liberal party was responsible. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats clearly differentiated himself from the Liberal party. As a Conservative, I certainly would not do that, as the Liberals did a great deal in the 19th century that was extremely effective and very good.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I believe that I am still on the residual body of the Liberal party executive—the real Liberal party.

William Cash: I am extremely delighted to hear that, especially as the hon. Gentleman is my opposite number in whichever party he belongs.
	We should not say simply that this is an excellent Bill, and let it sail through without comment. Only a few days ago, towards the end of last week, the Minister and I, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the hon. Gentleman from the erstwhile Liberal party—now the Liberal Democrats—exchanged views on the question of enduring powers of attorney and the issue of fees. That is at the heart of this Bill, too, as it is important to note, not only from the explanatory notes but from the way in which the process has been working, that there is a great deal of uncertainty about how to calibrate the fee system in the context of what we could describe generally as free—or relatively free—legal advice and when the Public Trust Office or the Public Guardianship Office is involved.
	The transfer of responsibility to the Lord Chancellor's Department represents a determination to try to reduce some of the fees substantially. As we found in relation to the statutory instrument last week, however, some of the fees being charged have increased up to threefold. There is some inconsistency in that. Enthusiastic as people might be about the proposal, the fact that the Lord Chancellor and not the Treasury will fix fees in relation to the Public Trustee's trust work—that will bring those fees into line with other fee-setting provisions—does not necessarily solve the problem. I do not want to call it the wallpaper difficulty, but the question is whether the sums required to run the functions under the Public Trustee Act 1906 will be adequate. We also need to ensure that the people who will be affected—they will often not be well-off—are not overcharged.
	I have described the balance that must be struck, but that is a matter for the future. However, I shall watch the situation as it progresses, because an inherent difficulty is implicit in the proposal; there is no answer in itself. We need to know how the money from the fees will be worked out. Will the proposal be fair and will it strike a proper balance?
	The Minister described the interesting exception to section 7 of the 1906 Act. It somewhat defies belief that a provision should have been enacted in 1906 and that it has taken until 2002 to discover that it is of no effect. I am delighted that the Government have taken this opportunity to rectify the position, but it is astonishing that it should have taken so long to discover that simple legal fact or point of law.
	The other point that I wish to mention is the relationship between the Public Trust Office, the Public Guardianship Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Although I do not intend to do so, I could spend some time on the criticisms of the Public Trust Office made in the 35th report of the Public Accounts Committee. However, those criticisms are part of the reason why I want to spend a little more time on this debate than was taken on Second Reading in the other place. We are being asked to consider the liability in fees of the Public Trustee, so we should take account of the Public Account Committee's severe criticisms of the running of a public body.
	Given the recent changes and the transfer of functions to the Lord Chancellor's Department, we should be mindful of the fact that all is not plain sailing. In particular, I refer to three specific comments made by the Public Accounts Committee. In relation to the welfare of people with mental incapacity—I alluded to them earlier—it said:
	"Overall, we concluded that:
	The Public Trust Office is failing to ensure that the financial interests of patients are adequately protected".
	That is pretty severe criticism. Secondly, the Committee said:
	"The Public Trust Office is failing to ensure, through its visits programme, that patients funds are being used for their benefit".
	Thirdly, it said:
	"The Public Trust Office's management information is inadequate".
	A further 30 pages of material and cross-examination demonstrates the basis on which such criticisms were reached.
	It is not simply a matter of going over the past for its own sake because that would do no good. The real question is to what extent the Bill is adequate in changing the regime, attitude and behaviour of the Public Trust Office and its successor in a manner that will genuinely remedy the problems identified by the PAC. If it is not possible for the Bill, because of its long title, to ensure that the problems are remedied, the Minister must assure us that the matters reported by the PAC are being taken seriously by the Lord Chancellor's Department and that the Government are going to do something about them.

John Cryer: Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that I shall be brief, because I want to concentrate on a constituency case.
	The PAC and the National Audit Office have produced a series of critical reports, dating back to the PAC's report of 1994 which made damning criticisms of the Public Trust Office. Having read the reports, I think it is clear that their findings are conclusive, and the Bill has widespread support on both sides of the House.
	There are various problems with the Public Trust Office. In the case that concerns me, my constituent's mother died and the Public Trust Office is holding £40,000 of her money that it is not keen to release. In a letter, my constituent explains that it is
	"nearly 3 months later and I still have no release of the court funds. I am very sure that the £40,000 is no longer being held in a good interest bearing account, and I also have final payments to make on my mother's behalf."
	I suspect that many hon. Members will have come across similar problems with the Public Trust Office.
	The quinquennial report by the Lord Chancellor's Department mentions that, in the receivership division of the Public Trust Office, the
	"Current live caseload is about 2,750 and clients' funds total approximately £252 million."
	That is a hefty sum—about £0.25 billion pounds is being held purely by the receivership division, as in my constituent's case. I hope that the changes mean that public offices will not hold on to money for as long, and with the same determination, as the Public Trust Office and its successor, the Public Guardianship Office.
	The 1906 Act made the Public Trust Office self-financing, which means that it cannot be subsidised by the Treasury. The Bill changes that provision and the Treasury will be able to provide subsidies if needed.
	My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the repeal of certain sections. Will she assure me that future beneficiaries, who would have been covered by the liability of the Public Trust Office, will not lose out? Will she also assure me that the Bill's provisions will lead to greater efficiency?

David Heath: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which she introduced the Bill. Brevity is not necessarily a sign of inconsequentiality, and the Bill, albeit short, is important, so I cannot guarantee that I will be as brief as my colleagues in another place.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) for his comments. Many hon. Members have constituents who have had difficulties because of the performance of the Public Trust Office, and they will be pleased to know that changes have taken place. However, we must wait to see whether those changes have been effective in ensuring a better service for our constituents.
	I am always careful when I see that we are to amend an Act from 1906, from the extraordinary reforming Government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who were the fount of a great deal of judicial common sense and social reform.

George Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that the Bill was not prepared by the preceding Conservative Government and then implemented by the incoming Liberal Administration?

David Heath: Had the hon. Gentleman held his fire for a second, I would have implicated Lord Halsbury in the Bill's preparation. It was introduced by a Liberal Government, but on an all-party basis. The Conservative Opposition, who supported it, had indeed been working on a Bill when they were in government, but had not managed to find time for it. The Act, which has stood the test of time since 1906, addressed a social ill.
	Let us turn away from history and consider the Bill before us. We welcome the findings of the quinquennial review and the actions that have been taken since: the creation of the Public Guardianship Office to deal with enduring powers of attorney, the move of the court funds office to the Court Service, and this Bill dealing with Public Trustee work, which has been moved to the Official Solicitor's Office.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for mentioning our discussions last week on the fee structure, introduced by the Lord Chancellor's Department, for work on enduring powers of attorney in the Public Guardianship Office. There are parallels between the two matters of which we need at least to be aware. The fees for registering enduring powers of attorney and for first-year case set-up in receivership have massively increased, and it is legitimate to ask whether an analogous situation will occur with this Bill.
	In Committee last week I voiced strong suspicions that there is continuing cross-subsidy of the investment now being made in the service. For years, investment was sadly lacking, which may be one reason for the standard of service to which the hon. Member for Hornchurch referred. The extra investment, particularly in IT, is being paid from the fees charged under the new structure, and that is a real concern.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that both Opposition parties divided the Committee on the question of the way in which the fees are being levied, not because of any grave objection to the principle of trying to ensure that we balance the fee structure, but because we wanted to ensure that, when the new structure begins to operate, we do not see threefold increases in fees?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but the Government would respond by saying that this Bill is an attempt to remedy precisely that evil. As we know, under the 1906 Act, the present fee structure has to
	"produce an annual amount sufficient to discharge the salaries and other expenses incidental to the working of the Act and no more."
	It is hard to discern the intention of the Attorney-General, Sir John Walton, almost 100 years ago, but I suspect that it was to limit the fees so that they did not become excessive. The words "and no more" are the key. What has resulted, however, is a restriction on the Lord Chancellor's Department which is unsustainable in the present circumstances, particularly in the light of the new role of the office.
	I welcome the power to mitigate the fees. The Parliamentary Secretary has set out how essential it is to provide protection for the vulnerable people who are the recipients of this service, so that we do not allow their capital to be eroded, particularly in the direction of the Exchequer.
	According to the explanatory notes, the Government intend to reduce the current working deficit of £1.9 million and achieve recovery, less remissions, in three years. I find it a little difficult to reconcile that intention with the Bill's adduced purpose of protecting the recipient of such activities from excessive fee increases, but perhaps the Minister will offer an explanation. The suggestion is that a new cross-subsidy will be introduced, and that—excluding those who are unable to pay—people will have to pay for the reduction in the subsidy. In other words, they will pay more than they would otherwise have paid.
	It would help if the Minister could confirm that the fee structure will be devised by order, and that the matter will be debated in the House. Will the total fee structure of the Public Trust Office form part of the departmental annual report to the House, or will it be reported in some other way? A key point—I hope that it is not spurious—is that the Bill's impact is not retrospective. It appears that the Government are currently acting illegally, outwith the 1906 legislation. What would happen if a legal challenge were mounted against the actions of the Lord Chancellor's Department, up to the point at which the Bill becomes law? That is not entirely impossible.
	When I spoke on matters agricultural, the analogous situation of the White Fish Authority was mentioned. In that case, such a challenge was mounted, and the fee structure was deemed unlawful and outwith existing legislation. Retrospective charges had to be applied unless new primary legislation were enacted to correct the problem. What would happen if such a challenge were made in this case? Would the current shortfall have to be made up between its first coming to light and its correction by means of the Bill, and a retrospective charge imposed on recipients of the Public Trust Office's services?
	I am perfectly content that the Lord Chancellor's Department should set the fees, rather than the Treasury, inasmuch as a member of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor, should set any such fees. It is entirely proper that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department should set those fees, but I am less content that a member of the judiciary should have that Government function.
	In terms of abuse of the process, if liability were established and such sums were recovered from the budget of the Lord Chancellor's Department rather than from the Treasury's contingency funds, would they form part of the operating costs of the Public Trust Office, or of the Official Solicitor? In other words, will any costs be in effect recoverable from those who receive the service? Would such costs have to be recovered to meet Treasury rules? My suspicion is that they might, but I hope that they will not, and that contingency funds will be available from the Lord Chancellor's Department's overall vote. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm that point.
	I conclude by pointing out that the Liberal Democrats have no intention of dividing the House, and we wish the Bill good progress.

George Osborne: It is a novel experience to be called to speak so early in the afternoon, although not so novel to be called at the end of our debate.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I support the Bill, and wish to speak as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Sadly, most other PAC members are in a hearing at the moment, although I notice that a new PAC member, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is in the Chamber. She may not be aware that my constituency is supposed to provide mutual aid to the Conservatives in her Bolton, West constituency, although that has proved spectacularly unsuccessful recently—witness the fact that she is here. Indeed, the Conservatives were providing that financial aid when they lost my constituency.
	The Bill is needed to protect the vulnerable people mentioned by the Minister—the elderly, the mentally incapacitated, families with vaccine-damaged children and so on—who benefit from the work of the Public Trustee. Many would be unable to afford the increased fees which would be imposed if the existing law remained unamended. The Bill has all-party support, as has been demonstrated this evening. It has been dealt with quickly, and was dispensed with in just seven minutes in the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone pointed out. However, with contributions from him and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), that was never going to be the case in the House of Commons.
	Before the Bill is rubber-stamped and reaches the statute book, it is worth reflecting that chronic mismanagement of the Public Trust Office by the Lord Chancellor's Department under two successive Governments—so I am not making a party political point—led to its introduction. We should congratulate the PAC under the chairmanship of both Robert Sheldon, now Lord Sheldon, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), whose work, along with that of the National Audit Office, has exposed many of the poor financial practices which plagued the Public Trust Office. The PAC produced various reports, one of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. The second report of the Session for 2001 to 2002 says:
	"Public bodies that manage or regulate their clients' money, especially for people disadvantaged through mental incapacity, must meet the highest professional standards. The Public Trust Office fell below those standards."
	It also says:
	"Departments should have effective mechanisms for overseeing the work of Agencies for which they are responsible. The Lord Chancellor's Department acknowledged that its oversight of the Public Trust Office should have been better."
	As a result of that mismanagement in an office which, as the Minister said, should have commanded the highest degree of public confidence, many fees were not collected on time and it became almost impossible to trace large unclaimed balances. Members of the public had to go through filing systems or read back issues of the London Gazette dating back to 1726 to see if they were eligible to claim certain moneys. No attempt was made to alert people to the fact that they were entitled to payment. Indeed, there was even a failure to reclaim about £125,000 in VAT, which the clients of the Public Trust Office paid for in increased fees. The staff were overstretched and unable to cope and eventually the office's chief executive was asked to leave early. However, she collected a hefty bonus, which the Department was unable to do anything about.

William Cash: In fact, as was mentioned in Committee the other day, there have been three chief executives in the past year or so. I believe that the Minister will confirm that.

George Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was referring in particular to Chief Executive Ms Lomas, who received a bonus.

Rosie Winterton: Before my time.

George Osborne: I believe that it happened after 1997.
	The failures highlighted by the PAC over a number of years were reinforced by the Department's quinquennial review, to which the Minister referred. It noted:
	"Corporate development, business modernisation, high quality client service and comprehensive, reliable financial management information systems have not materialised".
	That is Sir Humphrey-speak for a complete mess. As a result of the review, the Public Trust Office was abolished and its trust work transferred. I suspect that a sorry history of poor management and lack of financial accountability led to the current position—the Government have had to accept that the work of the Public Trustee, which has been self-supporting since 1906, cannot remain so in future. I accept that. There is no mileage to be made from making vulnerable people in our society pay for the mistakes of Whitehall.
	I end with a couple of questions which I should be grateful if the Minister would consider. The explanatory notes state rather vaguely:
	"The Bill will enable fees to be set which allow for a level of public subsidy where fee remissions are justified".
	Before we give the Bill a Second Reading, I should be interested to hear from the Minister what level of public subsidy she envisages as a result of the Bill.
	The explanatory notes also state that the current deficit is about £1.9 million. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, speaking for the Liberal and Liberal Democrat parties, made a good point. The Government state in the explanatory notes that they intend to reduce the deficit, but how will that be achieved? By how much will fees increase? Even if they do not increase by 100 per cent., which would have been the case if the law had not changed, by how much will they increase in order to reduce the deficit?
	Finally, Baroness Scotland pointed out in the other place that, as a consequence of the administrative changes that led to the abolition of the Public Trust Office,
	"the accommodation and other overhead costs attributed to trust work increased significantly from 1st April 2001, while the income from trusts work has reduced".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. 1050.]
	Can the Minister say why the accommodation and overhead costs increased so dramatically, so that we can be sure that we are not still suffering from poor financial management in her Department, and so that we can be reassured that the culture change about which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spoke will take place?

Keith Vaz: I shall speak briefly in a very brief debate—so brief that when I saw the Minister's name appear on the annunciator I rushed in, but by the time I arrived she had finished speaking. I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being present during her speech.
	It is unusual for both sides of the House to support a measure, and I am glad that we are supporting it. I welcome the Bill, which will provide for the necessary changes to ensure that the work of the office and the trustee is made more efficient. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that we should be cautious when we seek to amend an Act of Parliament that has been around for 100 years, but I think that that fact itself makes it ready for amendment.

David Heath: I said that it was not the Act's longevity that gave it added value, but the fact that it was introduced by a Liberal Government.

Keith Vaz: Liberals are always claiming credit, especially for their own Acts.
	I see my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in his place. He has the Adjournment, and I do not want to detain him or the House. I shall make three quick comments. First, I am glad that the Government have responded so positively to the points made in the quinquennial review. They have acknowledged that errors were made. However, when the Government create executive agencies, as the Conservative Government did in 1994, the degree of ministerial involvement will inevitably be less effective than if that body were part of the Government's work. With executive agencies, Ministers and officials must wait until matters are brought to their attention. We should not criticise the officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department for what they have done. They reacted as they ought to have reacted when matters were brought to their attention.
	Secondly, it is important that the work of the Public Trustee should be publicised. The fact that not many people know of the existence of that office may be due, in part, to the fact that when things go wrong, we do not get to hear about it unless we sit on the Public Accounts Committee or the matter is brought to our attention in some other way. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that the Lord Chancellor's Department will provide more information about the office, so that its work can be brought to the attention of the public, especially those who are vulnerable and who need the support of the Public Trustee. If we publicise such information, we will be much more careful about the way in which organisations and executive agencies are reviewed. That will mean that more ministerial attention is directed to that area of policy.
	As for the quinquennial review, there were resource and other recommendations. I know that the Government have accepted the recommendations, and I hope that they have all been implemented. At least we can hear from the Minister that she hopes that they will be implemented in the near future. There has been a change of name and there has been a relaunch, but it is not enough to change a name. It is necessary also to change the ethos, the structure and the way in which things are done. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that the process will continue.

William Cash: We have had a short but useful debate. To take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I had some slight misgivings about the fact that, as the Minister said in another place, the office has been relaunched as the Public Guardianship Office with effect from 1 April 2001. There is a problem because we have the Public Trustee Act 1906, we have functions that are repeatedly referred to as Public Trustee functions, but we have a relaunch as a Public Guardianship Office. There could be some confusion in the mind of the public. There has been an example of that with the rebranding of the Post Office as Consignia, with a return to the previous name.
	In the spirit of co-operation and good will that has been generated during the debate, some significant points have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) raised some important points about the Public Accounts Committee and the way in which it has conducted its functions. We have also heard some criticisms about the practical operations of the office.
	I conclude by requesting the Minister to consider the uncertainty and confusion that can arise, especially when we are dealing with people who are not necessarily learned in the law. They merely want to have their affairs dealt with properly. If names are not consistent with the Act and if we do not have clarity, there may be some confusion.

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. As has been said, it has been short but thoughtful.
	I am grateful for the support that Opposition Members have shown so as to give the Bill a fair wind. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) suggested that the work of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee is perhaps not widely known. I take on board his points about seeing whether we can give wider publicity to the work that is undertaken. I assure him that a considerable amount of information is available on the internet. I accept, however, that clarity is important.
	During the debate, there has, perhaps, been some confusion about the work of the Public Trustee as opposed to that of the Public Guardianship Office. I can assure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that our changing the 1906 Act implies no criticism of the Act. It suited the times, but obviously things have moved on.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) referred to one of his constituents—he works assiduously on behalf of his constituents. I think that the issue to which he referred would have been dealt with by the Public Guardianship Office. Following the 1999 report and the quinquennial review, the trust work was transferred through the Public Trustee to the Official Solicitor's office. The Public Guardianship Office dealt with people who had mental incapacity problems and, perhaps through the enduring power of attorney, had receivers or needed receivers to be appointed. The work of the Public Trustee is somewhat different, as it will administer funds that have come through the trusts. As I mentioned, the Public Trustee will be responsible for administering the compensation awarded to vaccine- damaged children. None the less, in the light of the specific problems that my hon. Friend's constituent may have experienced with the Public Guardianship Office, I shall take up the matter. I think that he has written to me once already, but if he would care to do so again, I shall certainly look into the matter.
	Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), mentioned the relationship between the Public Guardianship Office and the Official Solicitor. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the efficiency of the Public Guardianship Office and enduring powers of attorney. He mentioned the fact, as he did in Committee last week, that some fees were increased but that a number of fees went down. I was disappointed that the Opposition chose to divide the Committee on that matter, as I believe that the remissions policy that we introduced is extremely important and protects some of the least well-off people.

William Cash: I am sure that the Minister will not be disappointed when I say that what I am seeking to do in this debate—I did so when I assisted in pressing the Committee to a Division—is to ensure that a proper balance is struck between what goes up and what comes down. That is the key point. The difficulty was that we were faced with the knowledge that there had been a threefold increase in fees, which we thought was too much.

Rosie Winterton: I think that the hon. Gentleman would also accept, however, that there was a great deal of criticism of the previous cross-subsidy, and that it was important to achieve the right balance in terms of one client paying for another's services. That was affecting some of the least well-off, so we wanted to ensure the proper balance.
	I shall now turn to the issues raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee. As I said, I could not quite remember all the previous chief executives of the Public Trust Office, as some of them were before my time as a Minister. The point about the Bill—this is where some of the confusion may have arisen—is that in setting the future fees, we hope to establish that there is not a statutory requirement for full cost recovery. We will consider how fees may be increased to meet certain of the Treasury criteria and to ensure that we do not face criticism from the Public Accounts Committee. We certainly want to ensure that we can have an element of public subsidy to protect the very poorest clients if necessary.
	The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Stone mentioned overheads and the way in which the trust function previously operated. Prior to the transfer of the trust function to the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee, that function of the office was already operating at a deficit in cost recovery of some £500,000. Overhead costs originally increased by about £1.2 million in April 2001. That was the result of two factors—first, the higher cost of accommodation at Chancery lane, which the hon. Member for Stone recalled nostalgically, as compared to the costs of Stewart house and, secondly, the share of the higher overheads that had to be borne by the trust function at the new office. Recent discussions with my Department about projected forecasts for the current financial year suggest a further increase in overhead costs of about £700,000.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked whether there would be retrospective liability in terms of costs not being recovered. We believe that it is highly unlikely that we would face a legal challenge from somebody who wished to pay more than they had previously paid, so it is unnecessary for the Bill to apply retrospectively. It is extremely unlikely that someone would say, "We want to take action in order to ensure that we could have paid more previously." Consequently, there will be no such liability.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned fees orders. Those are made by the Lord Chancellor and are not laid before the House, but they will be considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

David Heath: May I return the hon. Lady to the potential confusion between the various offices? Can she confirm whether the legal person of the Public Trustee is now identical to the legal person of the Official Solicitor, and whether that is set out in any statute or might be incorporated into the Bill?

Rosie Winterton: Yes, they are the same person. I do not believe that it is necessary for that to be covered by the Bill, but if it is I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm it.

William Cash: On the question of confusion arising in respect of legal capacity or legal personality, the use of such expressions may create confusion in itself. I am worried about people's perceptions. Many of those involved would not necessarily be able easily to make such distinctions. The same probably applies to many Members of Parliament, but that is another matter.

Rosie Winterton: I am sure that few Members of Parliament could be confused about anything. That was an extraordinary comment.
	The debate has been thoughtful and I am grateful for hon. Members' support for the Bill. I am pleased that the House has recognised the valuable work of the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee, especially that of protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Bill will enable us to continue to provide that vital protection, and to modernise some of the financial and other procedures in government.
	Many people will benefit from the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

PUBLIC TRUSTEE (LIABILITY AND FEES) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Public Trustee Act 1906.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 9th July, if proceedings on the Police Reform Bill [Lords] have not been completed before Seven o'clock, Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill and the Private Business may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 24th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received and he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Rosindell to present a petition. He is not here. I call Mr. Pound.

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Stephen Pound: I regret that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) was not in his place. The speed of our proceedings has been such that we have not so much debated as waved at legislation as it passed by. I understand why the hon. Gentleman was not present.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the subject of tonight's debate. I cannot believe that many hon. Members who are present are not as exercised as I am by the increase in complaints from their constituents that fall within the broad ambit of antisocial behaviour. Clearly, it is not a new problem. I believe that some Sumerian clay tablets were recently unearthed and that they were translated to reveal the statement: "The youth of today have no control and are causing mayhem on the streets." That was a few thousand years ago. However, we clearly have a problem and we need to deal with it.
	We owe it our constituents and the wider electorate to be thoughtful about antisocial behaviour. Simply saying that people should be locked up and swept off the streets is not good enough. We lock up more people than any other European country and we owe it to our electorate to examine the causes a little more deeply. I should like to narrow the focus slightly to concentrate on teenagers and young people, and my area of north-west London.
	When people complain about the antisocial behaviour of teenagers and young people, they must accept that the young people responsible for graffiti, vandalism, noise nuisance and all the other problems that worry us have not leapt on to the streets fully formed in their feral shape; they have a background. I understand that some, who have all the advantages in life and could be described as "A Clockwork Orange" generation, will still commit the foulest antisocial activities with no possible excuse, but we castigate and criticise many people who have been victims and are often the product of unfortunate and unhappy backgrounds.
	Tonight, I want to concentrate particularly on looked-after children—children who were until recently described as being in care. Until 1934—certainly within living memory—in my constituency, there was a huge building, which is now Hanwell community centre, into which were swept any young boys and girls who happened to be found wandering the streets of an evening. Charlie Chaplin was one famous example. He was found on the streets of Southwark and ended up in Hanwell, which I would say was a step upwards, although he did not see it that way. These young children were trained, in the case of girls, to be downstairs maids or between-stairs maids, and, in the case of boys, to be buglers or carpenters.
	We have moved on a bit from the idea of warehousing young people, and from the old idea of the children's home, and the reason that I am raising this matter tonight is that we are in transition. We have a lot of very needy young people, and we have a range of responses to their needs. We must be absolutely sure that we are proceeding sensibly and logically towards meeting their needs and the needs of the communities in which they live.
	In my area of north-west London, we had a commercial organisation that placed vulnerable young children on behalf of a number of other London boroughs. I want to ask the Minister whether she would be prepared to examine the issue of cross-borough placements in this context, from the point of view of both inspection and monitoring. There is a temptation for boroughs to place young people in other boroughs, and for the old principle of "out of sight, out of mind" to apply.
	An additional problem, which I shall come to in a moment, is the definition of the term "hostel". In these circumstances, we are talking about small, residential units above shops. They are not hostels. In planning law, the definition of a hostel includes shared provision for cooking and eating. A group of small units does not constitute a hostel; therefore there can be no licence. There can, therefore, be no local authority locus, so when the local people turn to the council for assistance, the council is unable to help because the premises in question are not a licensed hostel.
	People turn to the local councillors in these circumstances, but, in many cases, they are unable to respond to their needs. Had this taken place in Victorian times, when Mr. Bumble strolled the streets, those people would at least have had a figure to go to. Now they have my colleagues, Councillors Richard Porter, Fred Varley and Shital Manro, who are just as responsive as Mr. Bumble and far more approachable than he ever was. They are, however, unable to assist.
	It is appropriate that we are considering the issue of vulnerable, fragile young people—whose needs must be considered at the same time as those of the community in which they live—at this time, because this is foster care fortnight. I would like to pay tribute to the Fostering Network for providing the lapel badges that I see many right hon. and hon. Members wearing, and for its work in raising the profile of fostering. We know that it needs 8,000 more foster carers, and that there are 45,000 children being fostered on any one day in this country.
	If those children are not fostered, they end up in the sort of accommodation that I have described. The commercial organisation to which I referred earlier is now working in partnership with the local authority. It has agreed to reduce the number of young people placed in the hostel, and I hope that the partnership between the organisation and the local authority will continue, to the benefit of all the young people concerned.
	I am also optimistic about the general thrust of Government policy in this direction, which is considering in depth the needs of young people in parallel with the needs of the local community. This issue is not capable of resolution by a simple sweep of the kind that we find described in the red-top tabloids; it is one that we have to address in some detail. I would particularly like to share with the Minister some of the developments in Ealing's children's services, and, in all honesty, to pay tribute to the Government's impressive programme of reform for better futures for vulnerable children and looked-after children in our society.
	The House does not hear often enough of the advantages and the benefits of the innovative national quality protects programme or of the significant extra resources for children's services, which we would all agree have made a real change in the lives of children and their families. That work, as we know, links in with the Government's wider programme of commitment to education and social inclusion through education and training. It also aims to do that most marvellous and most noble of things—break the cycle of poverty and exclusion that has marginalised so many people in our society.
	Twenty years ago, when I was first elected a councillor, a 16-year-old woman came to see me with a baby in her arms. She had a terrible housing problem, which I was able to address, as we had council housing in those dim and distant days. Sixteen years later, that baby, grown to maturity, came to my surgery with her baby in her arms, but I was unable to assist. That is the cycle of deprivation that we must address, because it leads to exclusion and marginalisation. I pay particular tribute to the Government for their work on that.
	It is not necessary, I would have thought, to state that the provision of a stable, loving and secure home for children with substitute families, should no parental family exist, is the clearest way to ensure that they have the opportunity for a positive future or that successful outcomes in terms of education, health and career opportunities as well as emotional stability with such a family base to return to is more likely to succeed.
	I am delighted to tell the Minister that 80 per cent. of Ealing's looked-after children are now placed with substitute families—a very significant increase over the past three years. That is the result not just of extremely hard work by people such as Judith Finlay and Professor Norman Tutt OBE, director of housing and social services in Ealing, but of the active and ongoing publicity campaigns and outreach work with local communities to recruit local carers and reduce the number of children placed outside the borough, thereby obviating precisely the cross-borough placement problem to which I referred.
	I am also delighted to share with the Minister the fact that foster carers are actively sought and recruited in Ealing. We do not wait for them to come to us; we go out and find them. We value the important and challenging work that they do. Each year, I am honoured to attend the foster carers' awards dinner and ceremony, which celebrates their important contribution to our local community and rewards their achievements with certificates for one, 10, 20 and, in one case that I recall, 30 years of service to vulnerable children.
	We celebrate a special award for the outstanding contribution from an individual carer, nominated by the children themselves, in recognition of Ealing's first-ever black carer. I am particularly pleased to tell the Minister that Ealing, which has a population as diverse as that in any borough, matches that diversity with the diversity of its carers, who come from all ages and backgrounds and from all communities.
	The number of children placed for adoption recently reached the highest ever in Ealing—22 adoption orders were granted last year and a further 44 children are currently placed for adoption. Those figures reflect implementation of the Prime Minister's review of adoption and the establishment of the national taskforce on adoption to share good practice, on which Ealing's director of children's services is represented.
	Another development, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the Minister of State, Department of Health, was present, was the launch last month of the Westminster and West London Consortium on Adoption. That returns us to the theme, which I am trying to establish tonight, that local authorities need to work together on the issue, especially in London. They have tried to go it alone in assessing potential adopters and identifying suitable matches for children.
	The new consortium is an absolute breakthrough in that it provides a wider pool of adoptees and children to match up across the central and west London area. As the Minister knows, that will be further facilitated by the establishment of a national register of adopters and adoptees. The consortium model is already contributing to a marked increase in the speed of adoption and the number of children placed for adoption in Ealing and across west London.
	The Government's agenda on improving education outcomes for children in public care, following the issuing of national guidance—the Minister formerly held the relevant role—is also leading to the raising of expectations and achievement in Ealing. I do not often stand here and blow a trumpet for the London borough of Ealing, but when we do something well I think the country needs to know it. I hope that the House will allow me to say that the percentage of children leaving care in Ealing with at least one GCSE rose from 16.7 to 35.2 per cent. in 2001–02, and we are currently on course for more than 50 per cent. of year-11 looked-after children achieving that target this academic year.
	Those figures are still nationally too low, but they show the progress that can be made with a concerted effort, additional resources and partnership between children, social workers, carers and schools. A positive education is clearly the best opportunity we can give vulnerable children, especially those who grow up in the care system. Those children may be diverted from what we consider antisocial activities into useful, productive activity for the benefit of society, themselves and the community at large.
	In Ealing, we currently have five specialist teachers to help looked-after young children with their educational needs. They provide a short-term service for children not currently in school placement, and integrate them back into mainstream school places. They also offer additional support for schoolteachers and carers. In addition, they run homework clubs and SATs and GCSE pre-exam holiday clinics. The council has made a clear commitment to providing financial support for looked-after children in higher education.
	Members will probably be aware of the appallingly low number of looked-after children nationally who make it to higher education. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was once quoted as saying that in his constituency in any one year more teenagers go to jail than go to university. That is a horrific and terrifying statistic, and we need to take great and careful heed of it.
	In Ealing, we are not quite in that position. Thirteen young people who were care leavers are currently at university. That is 13 more than we had a few years ago, and the number is expected to rise to 25 over the next two years. That is a real response to the needs of young people, and a real diversion away from the antisocial behaviour of many young people in the past. The figure includes a young man who is a 4th-year medical student, and a young woman who I am delighted to say will start this September at the world's finest university, the London School of Economics, of which I am an alumnus. Another outstanding young woman is studying politics at Cardiff university. Despite the fact that she has undertaken work experience in my office, she is still interested in politics.
	In addition, Ealing was very involved in the Department for Education and Skills teenagers to work programme in May this year, in which 28 young people took part, including three Ealing young people in care who had a two-day placement in Brussels with MEPs and three who had placements with fellow MPs at the House of Commons. Others chose such settings as the fire station. I cannot comment on that: the young person I had working with me seemed to enjoy herself. Opportunities for children who are often excluded from the chances that many young people in mainstream families take for granted can only increase their understanding and ability to exercise real choices about their own future, to be involved in the wider society, and to be diverted from antisocial behaviour.

Peter Luff: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I did not give him notice of my intention to intervene. I welcome what he is saying about education. Will he join me in welcoming what the Government are doing by broadening vocational education to GCSE level, which is likely to engage the young people that he is talking about much more in school-based activities? It is a constructive approach. Children who are at present alienated by an excessively academic curriculum may be re-engaged as a result of that initiative.

Stephen Pound: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. People of my generation who were divided into sheep and goats at the age of 11, who suffered the agonies of the grammar versus secondary modern school system and were often marked for life by one afternoon when they were 11 have concerns about a wholly vocational alternative in secondary education. Hon. Members may be amazed to hear me say this, but I think that the Government have got it absolutely right. They have managed to find the via media between those old extremes. They have recognised that vocational training meets the needs of particular groups of people, and by making that available while at the same time not making it a matter of stigma, they have managed to excite the support of even the hon. Member for Mid–Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—and I never thought I would be able to say that in this place. I am delighted to join him in that.
	Two years ago, we were extremely fortunate to have the Minister's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), open our one-stop shop for children in care and for care leavers. The Ealing drop-in centre has gone from strength to strength and underpins Ealing's approach to the Government's new legislation, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which has been implemented with additional Government resources from last September. The drop-in centre is led by young people in partnership with staff and Ealing's elected Members.
	Furthermore, Ealing's commitment to improving outcomes for children in care through the corporate parent panel, which is chaired by my old friend and colleague, John Cudmore, the leader of the council, has been an innovative and very successful model of ensuring that joined-up local government delivers the best possible services and outcomes to children in care. I sometimes cavil at phrases such as roll-outs, initiatives and joined-up government, but in this case it actually is joined-up local government. That ensures that looked-after children are seen not just as the responsibility of the social services department, but of the whole council, which provides access to education, housing, leisure, sports and arts opportunities. Ealing council takes very seriously its responsibility to the—I pause to allow the significance of this figure to sink in—380 children in its care. That is one London borough. Ealing acts as a good parent should.
	This is the third year that young people in Ealing are organising their own consultation day: a day to demonstrate their talents and abilities. The event is called the Ealing outerlimits day and takes place at the Questors theatre. It is a mixture of serious events, such as a drama production on children's experiences of the care system and how it can be improved, and a presentation on their educational achievements. It was extremely successful last year Marks and Spencer agreed to lend a lot of new clothes for a fashion parade, but unfortunately we were bombed two days before and its shop was inside the exclusion zone. A number of people, including myself, had to produce some of our older and more exciting garments, which the children could wear with some humour, not as high fashion. The day shows their talents in dance, arts, sports and music, and culminates in a talent contest of—dare I say it—"Pop Idol" style and a barbecue and party. The event also ensures that all children can access information that they need on education, health and housing issues as well as arts, sports and music.
	I suspect that the Minister knows what is coming. This year's event takes place on Saturday 10 August. I appreciate that she may have a prior engagement with the Salford motor cycle club on that day, but if she is able to drag herself away from her two-wheeled weekend pastime, I would be delighted to invite her to attend and open the event and to meet some of Ealing's talented looked-after young people. She will also see the Government's radical policy programme translated into real action.
	I started by talking about the components of the wider problem that we describe as antisocial behaviour. I said that we should consider what makes up the groups of children and young people whom we stigmatise and, let us be honest, from whom we sometimes suffer. We do not deserve to suffer, but they do not deserve to have us lump them together in one group.

Peter Luff: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, especially what he said about not stigmatising a particular group. In Droitwich Spa, where there are real concerns about antisocial behaviour, it is clear that we cannot categorise the young people who are causing the problem of bad behaviour. They come from across the social spectrum, and not from one particular group. We must not assume that just because a child is underprivileged, he or she will necessarily be a leading light in antisocial behaviour in a town. That is certainly not my experience in Droitwich.

Stephen Pound: I am slightly worried that my membership of the Labour party may be in doubt if I continue to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I remember a group of overpaid City-employed hooligans known as the Flaming Ferraris. They came from an elegant background—indeed, I think that the father of one of them was a Conservative peer. In the 18th century, the Mohawks, young aristos from the Hellfire club, terrorised the streets of London, setting fire to watchmen—and possibly Labour canvassers, for all I know.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that social background is no determinant of antisocial behaviour. However, there is ample statistical evidence, particularly in the work done by Louise Casey in the rough sleepers unit as recently as two years ago, that an enormously high percentage of people who are homeless and suffer from drug and alcohol abuse problems are products of what we call the care system. We owe it to that group of people to identify their needs and present solutions. We owe it to this country and this Parliament not to stigmatise them and lump them together.
	In Northolt in my constituency, the problem was, I sincerely hope, one of transition. Young people were moving away from the warehoused care homes and orphanages of the past into a modern, more specific and better tailored way of resolving and addressing their needs. In transition, severe problems were caused. I reiterate my earlier comment that the organisation is now in partnership with the London borough of Ealing and the local residents, which will, I hope, be in the interests of all people.
	I ask the Minister to consider the points about hostel definition, cross-borough accreditation and the assessment and checking of standards. I also ask her to accept my assurance that in Ealing we address the needs of young people as well as the concerns of the community, because ultimately they make up society. If antisocial behaviour confronts and affronts society, we need to remember that these vulnerable young people are not only a part of society but a part that we should value, cherish and recognise.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on raising an extremely important issue with his usual sensitivity and common sense. He commended many things to us this evening, particularly the practices in Ealing. His description of Ealing seeing itself as a corporate parent was extremely interesting. He has brought a great deal of new information to the debate.
	The Government recognise that many communities are concerned about antisocial behaviour by young people. There can be no Members who do not regularly see people at their surgeries who suffer from such problems. As the hon. Member for Mid–Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, these problems are not confined to people from particular social backgrounds—they are many and varied. That is one reason why, since 1998, we have introduced a range of initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour, along with various programmes to tackle crime. Crucially, the fear of crime caused by low-level antisocial behaviour often does more damage to communities' sense of self-confidence than more serious and isolated criminal behaviour.
	This is about getting the balance right. Throughout our period in office, as well as introducing initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour, we have tried to demonstrate our commitment to improving opportunities for young people who have been living in and leaving local authority care. It is a matter of doing both; these objectives do not need to conflict when tackling antisocial behaviour and trying to support people who have left the local authority system.
	Those policies are expressed in the quality protects programme and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. Both measures have promoted support for care leavers so that they have the same opportunities as other young people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) introduced the Act with passion and common sense. He said that families do not suddenly stop taking responsibility for children when they are 16; that responsibility continues until they are 18, 21 and even beyond, when children regularly come back home looking for support. My right hon. Friend said that if our children come back and ask to borrow a tenner, we respond quite naturally, as we do if they come back with their washing or looking for emotional support. Equally, our responsibility as corporate parents means that we must continue to give support to children who leave care.
	We try to ensure that children leaving care can fully participate in the life of their local community as citizens, through education, training and opportunities to work. The quality protects programme has been welcomed by local authorities. I was particularly interested in my hon. Friend's description of what has been happening in his council. The quality protects programme has not only been delivered as a central Government policy but has been owned by the local authorities, which have been able to build on the principles in that programme to come up with ways of working that suit their community. The author of a report on evaluating local responses to the programme, Diana Robbins, has said
	"quality protects is an effective tool for developing local work on specific priorities; but it has already achieved changes"
	in way that local authorities work. Some of those changes may be a bit slow, but they are beginning to show through in terms of measurable outcomes.
	Our most recent data show that more children in care are being adopted and that looked-after children are experiencing fewer changes of carer—for many children in the care system, having different sets of foster parents and home settings has been extremely disruptive. There has been a complete reversal of the trend that had seen more and more young people discharged from care when they reached 16, whether or not they were ready for independence. We are now assessing young people on their skills and potential and providing them with the right level of support.
	We have also introduced the Adoption and Children Bill, which will overhaul the outdated Adoption Act 1976. It will modernise the existing legal framework for domestic and inter-country adoption. That change underpins our drive to speed up the process and provide many more looked-after children, who cannot return to their families, with a fresh start and the opportunity to live in and be part of a new family.
	The Care Standards Act 2000 established the National Care Standards Commission to ensure that vulnerable children and adults get the protection they need and that all care providers have high standards. There are now national minimum standards for the services to be regulated, and we hope that that will ensure that vulnerable children will have confidence in the quality and safety of the care that they receive.
	Local authorities have a duty to ensure that they place children in accommodation that conforms to national standards and meets their needs. That applies whether the placement is in their own authority, elsewhere across London or in any other part of the country. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 transformed the powers that councils had to support young people into duties. It became mandatory for local authorities to make sure that they followed through their responsibilities. That is relevant to the issues raised by my hon. Friend because the 2000 Act requires local authorities to assess and meet the needs of care leavers and, crucially, to stay in touch with them, not simply abandon them when they reach the age at which they can leave care. The duty continues wherever a young person moves to.
	The Act also provides that young people should have a pathway plan, setting out the support they will need and what help the local authority will offer them if things go wrong, so that they have confidence that they will continue to be looked after even when they are living independently. The plan has to include arrangements for young people to live in suitable accommodation.
	Councils should take steps to ensure that young people have the best chance of succeeding where they are living. Arrangements for their accommodation should be linked to other arrangements for support. As my hon. Friend has said, in his own local authority, the support is keyed in to issues of accommodation, education, transport and housing. All those services need to be connected and in place to give young people the best possible launch into their adult life.
	My hon. Friend mentioned some of the difficulties that had occurred locally and I entirely understand his concerns about the impact of young people on local residents. A group of young people left local authority care and almost all of them were placed in Ealing by other local authorities. That sends a key message: we must ensure that those authorities continue to take responsibility for the children whom they have placed. They must also share information with each other; they should work together in such situations rather than acting in isolation.
	Local people living near those youngsters associated their presence with nuisance, intimidation, vandalism and other criminal acts. Although it may be hard to prove a direct link between the young people and every incident that has occurred, the residents have real concerns and they were right to express them.
	I appreciate the fact that it seems to local people that an entirely new establishment housing nine young people has been imposed on their neighbourhood. Unfortunately, the status of the property is of nine self-contained independent flats, each with its own entrance and facilities, so the service is not defined as a hostel under current planning regulations. The scheme is thus not covered by planning law and would not qualify for inspection by the National Care Standards Commission.
	My hon. Friend raises legitimate concerns about a group of nine young people leaving care who are all vulnerable and need intense support, yet difficulties are caused because their accommodation does not fall under the narrow definition of a hostel. I can reassure him that the Government are considering ways to establish best practice in all publicly funded accommodation, including hostels. At present, they are not covered by the legislation, but I undertake to raise the issue with my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister so that we can reassure local people that regulation will be introduced.
	Through the quality protects programme and the other initiatives to which I referred, the Government stress that councils should try to take the same interest in the young people whom they have looked after as a reasonable parent would take in their own children who face the challenges of adulthood. It is important that the local authorities which placed those young people in my hon. Friend's constituency assure themselves that those young people are being offered adequate support. Like any reasonable parent, the local authorities should ensure that the young people can engage in constructive activity so that they are not left to drift and get involved in antisocial behaviour. They should be offered sufficient education and training to achieve their potential. Any parent will understand that even if support is available, young people inevitably push at the boundaries of behaviour, but it is important that local authorities which place young people maintain consistent contact and continue to provide regular support.
	The issues raised by my hon. Friend are not of the sort that can be easily and neatly resolved by central Government policy. They need to be resolved locally by all the parties getting together and involving local people. Young people are entitled to suitable accommodation with appropriate support, but their neighbours are equally entitled to go about their business free from harassment and intimidation and not to be subject to antisocial behaviour. The young people themselves have a responsibility to behave properly. They must recognise and act on their responsibility to be good neighbours.
	Where there is evidence of crime, antisocial behaviour and vandalism, the police have obligations to uphold the law and to protect the local community. Tackling antisocial behaviour locally requires co-ordinated action and the full use of all available resources. That could include the use of antisocial behaviour orders, if necessary, as well as acceptable behaviour contracts, which are being piloted in my hon. Friend's constituency. Young people enter into a contract about their future behaviour—a structured way of achieving the right balance.

Peter Luff: As the Minister said, this matter is of real concern throughout the country. In Droitwich Spa, I recently held a survey on the causes of antisocial behaviour and constituents' responses to it. There were several distinctive elements in those responses—including policing, antisocial behaviour orders and the need for tough sentencing. There was a strong emphasis on the need to provide more facilities for ordinary young people; there is just not enough for them to do in the average British town. Will the Minister ask local authorities and public bodies to support schemes to help young people, such as, for example, the Droitwich Spa adventure playground, which provides an outlet for the energy of young people, and the Droitwich fusion centre, which is an advice centre for kids who get into difficulties?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is right: we need enough facilities in our communities so that young people have plenty of things to do and do not get involved in antisocial behaviour. In my own constituency, we have the street to stadium scheme: youth workers go out on the streets and offer young people the opportunity to take part in sporting activities—such as five-a-side football and basketball—which they try to provide at reduced prices. It is often too expensive for many young people to hire time in leisure centres. The workers try to ensure that young people can use such facilities or those in local schools. Sometimes, simply setting up a basketball net in some empty space can help to engage youngsters in constructive activities. It is also important to ensure that we involve girls as well as boys. There are many successful programmes that use dance to engage girls, who may not want to play five-a-side football—although many play it and are extremely good at it. A great deal of imagination is being used to set up schemes to support our young people.
	Only a minority of young people are involved in antisocial behaviour; the vast majority want constructive activity. They are a credit to their community and make a huge contribution by helping people locally.
	I am pleased to say that things are improving dramatically in my hon. Friend's constituency, due in no short measure to his personal intervention in trying to resolve a difficult situation. He has made tremendous efforts to mediate between the young people and local residents. I was glad to learn that only last Friday agreements were reached that were satisfactory to all concerned. From now on, the flats will offer accommodation only to five young people instead of 10. I hope that those young people will, therefore, be better supported and managed and that not so many of them will congregate in the area. They will be offered a more individual support service. I am delighted that peace has broken out in the community, and I hope that things will continue to improve during the next few weeks and months.
	The Government recognise the need to offer young people leaving care adequate and reliable support. We are also determined to tackle antisocial behaviour by young people, and to ensure that they are diverted both from that behaviour and from serious crime and that communities are properly protected. Those objectives need not conflict; they are intended to build healthy and safe communities. I am sure that we all share that aim.
	The way to make progress is to admit the problem and to work together. In Ealing, local council staff, the police and the owner of the flats held meetings over a lengthy period to try to manage the situation. Local residents, the young people and the local authorities which originally housed them in Ealing were also included. That is crucially important: they all shared the solution so they all have a stake in making it work in future.
	There has been a fruitful outcome to the open and frank discussion of the situation that led to my hon. Friend calling this debate. It should be possible to ensure that only the young people best suited to benefit from the support available in those flats are placed there in future. Placements must be appropriate. I hope that, in future, the local community will have the reassurance that it has sought for some time. The parties have come together and they mean to ensure that people can live in peace in their neighbourhood and make a contribution to their community. I have no doubt that the practice adopted by Ealing is some of the best in the country, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to share some examples of that good practice with us.
	I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation to the open day on 10 August. I shall check my appointments and will try to be there. In any event, I am sure that it will be an excellent showcase for the abilities, talent and potential of many of the young people who are leaving care in his local authority.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Six o'clock.